Escape to the Movies: The Interview - This Is What We're All Getting Worked Up Over?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Interview - This Is What We're All Getting Worked Up Over?

The Interview is a decent enough comedy, but it's going to be remembered as an oddity in years to come.

Watch Video

I'd rather have gone to war over "Team America" instead.

If there is a movie that starts world war 3, this clearly isn't it.

I don't see what was so good about the first Woman in Black or plot elements that warranted a sequel. That ending was just silly.

What's 'Team Hollywood'?

The reason North Korea got up in arms over the Interview becomes a lot more obvious when you realize a bunch of their leadership was due to be reported to the international criminal court about now. Basically North Korea had two choices, it could be in the news because a bunch of its leaders had committed all manner of crimes, or it could be in the news for making a strop over a middle of the road Seth Rogan vehicle.

It's propaganda division, which is probably the best in the world, picked the second.

Watched it. Was amused. That's about all I can say about it.. I honestly don't see the big deal with it. Like many have said when this whole thing began, there have been more controversial movies made regarding world leaders than this..

CelestDaer:
What's 'Team Hollywood'?

I think its just the people at The Escapist that are part of the Movies & TV section.

Before even watching the video: You're really surprised the movie is B grade at best?

Yeah, The Interview won't bring North Korea to it's knees, but it definitely served it's purpose as a comedy. It was funny and was a pretty good movie. Not really much more to say, I liked it.

Saw it last night. Thought it was pretty funny. That's about it. It wasn't a game changing comedy or anything but it was pretty funny.

It absolutely kills me that this movie has become the.... symbol?.... that it has. It's goofy low-brow, fine for people into that sort of thing, but now it's been elevated into some sort of blazing sign of Freedom or something. In a just world, it would come out, some fans would enjoy it, and then it would just freaking disappear.

Thanks for making that sentiment more official than I could, MovieBob.

Tanneseph:
It absolutely kills me that this movie has become the.... symbol?.... that it has. It's goofy low-brow, fine for people into that sort of thing, but now it's been elevated into some sort of blazing sign of Freedom or something. In a just world, it would come out, some fans would enjoy it, and then it would just freaking disappear.

Thanks for making that sentiment more official than I could, MovieBob.

Its not like they had anything to do with it, or even the message.

The reaction was to the trailers and what the movie was about, not exactly what the movie was. The movie could have been even shittier with just 2 hours of both characters punching Kim Jong Un in the face or an actually good comedy with a good message but that doesnt matter since the whole "worked up" thing was about a comedy movie that had North Korea as its subject matter facing censorship.

The Interview: '[W]hat amounts to a longish version of a Family Guy cutaway . . . .'

That was an excellent, and funny, way to describe the movie, and I could totally see Family Guy doing something like that.

Thanks MovieBob for your witty cultural critique!

<< >> God damnit, Bobby.

The Interview should succeed only to discourage this kind of behavior from other organizations and nation states. However, it may have been an inside job, so that part might be moot. Still if North Korea did hack do they hilariously failed to accomplish what they set out to do. This movie has garnered more attention than it would of normally received and now it's a hot black market commodity in the North Korean black market. I'll take whatever lumps on a dictatorship can get. Also, James Franco's a creep.

That boy ain't right.

It's not the film itself but the principle of the whole fiasco of why it's a big deal; a company in America backing down from a vague email threat about a foreign country retaliating because it doesn't like the film they've made and are going to show. The film itself is garbage (haven't seen it but I can accurately guess what's going to be garbage when it's as obvious as this) but you create a situation like this, ya, it's gonna reek some havoc. Same thing happened years ago when Viacom censored Kyle's entire end speech from their 200th episode explaining the whole censorship thing with moohammand. It's also not surprising that Sony can't seem to make a good movie these days.

Has anyone noticed Franco was dressed as the Joker in the footage? No? Well, he was :)

Is this movie just Pineapple express in Korea?
Thats what it looks like.

I don't wanna lose muh dong.

So, about what I was expecting it to be.

Yeah, No. If you don't like these guys in general, you won't like them now.

Long version of modern-day family-guy is a fair comparison.

I find myself thinking that the movie would have been better if it had been about Castro. Just, automatically better. Maybe it's because I see plenty of jokes at Dear Leader 2.0's expense online already, but ehh. Of course, part of me says that if it WERE about Castro, and the movie was made a decade ago, he'd probably be cool with being IN the movie, so make of that what you will.

I watched it and definitely enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as Zack and Miri Make a Porno, but it was quite enjoyable for what it was.

I goddamn love Hank Hill. More Hank!

Evonisia:
I don't see what was so good about the first Woman in Black or plot elements that warranted a sequel. That ending was just silly.

But...but she's a ghost who, despite the fact that she can apparently selectively decide whether or not to reveal herself to someone, flips out and goes on a homicidal (errr...suicidal?) rampage whenever someone sees her! It's bloody brilliant!

I am rather sad because there were several occasions where this film got very close to saying something very profound, or simply needed to be said. Like criticizing Americas plots to overturn governments usually swopping a bad person for a worse one. It nearly even got around to speaking about how dangerously powerful media corporations are in relation to societies general lack of interest in checking facts. As it stands the most poignant thing to come out of this movie was the "Then why don't you feed them?" line.

It could have been good, and it did bring up topics that are important in today's world but it pussied out of it at the last moment every time.

Jman1236:
If there is a movie that starts world war 3, this clearly isn't it.

Well, not reacting to this is more likely to start World War III than anything.

See, the problem here isn't the movie, it's the actions taken because of it. At the end of the day even if one argues it's a propaganda piece, given our relationship with North Korea, it's attitudes, and the fact that we're still technically at war with them, it's nothing "special" for the media to kill off he leader of an opposing nation or ridicule them. We've done it to others, they have done it to us, big deal. The problem is that North Korea launched a hacking attack against Sony, and more importantly threatened terrorist acts against theaters that showed the movie. The movie theaters deciding to refuse to show the movie as a result represents a problem as it shows a lack of faith in the government's ability or willingness to protect them.

Something you need to understand is that Obama is a weak leader, and incompetent in international affairs. Under his "leadership" the US has not only lost pretty much every gain in The Middle East, but also has seen rival nations like Russia and China expanding into the US sphere of influence. Russia is trying to get control of The Black Sea which borders on the EU and directly threatens Poland, China has been blowing Filipinos off of boats in their own waters and building air force bases in their territory, and other things. This is largely happening because under Obama the US has backed down continually when it's put down a line. What's more we have not been honoring our commitments to our allies, basically we promised The Philippines that we would protect them (they are a former US territory), and we also promised Ukraine we would take action to keep Russia out. We didn't force control over these nations due to being the good guys, allowing them independence while being under our declared protection, in exchange for their support and use of their territory. Japan is also a country under US protection, arguably occupation, where part of the agreement with them to keep things "friendly" is that they have minimal military power while the US bases huge amounts of our Navy there as a foothold into The Far East. The idea being that Japan's military is a concession to their warrior psyche, but for protection it's our job. This is why it's a big deal when a Japanese corporation (especially one with strong US ties... for good or ill) is hacked this way by a foreign government.

As things continue, we're getting pushed more and more by all of our rivals because Obama won't do anything. Basically MAD only works if everyone believes everyone else will "push the button" so to speak. We're afraid of say Russia and China under Obama's leadership "because they have nukes" while we have them too, and they should be just as afraid as we are, but they aren't because they know Obama won't engage in serious military action other than some fairly half hearted "antiseptic" bombings and drone strikes.

A big part of this issue is specifically our relationship with North Korea, who we continually back down to despite them being a complete joke. Kim Jong Un wouldn't give this crap to say Putin because he knows what would happen. If we won't deal with them, what does Russia or China need to worry about?

Now, in a practical sense a lot of people who are fearful and believe in the "peace at any price" doctrine and suppored Obama for that don't see an issue, but when it comes to people being threatened there is no faith in the protection of the US. Basically what we've seen here is that our merchants have so little faith in the US government to protect them, that they will back down to threats made by a chubby lunatic on the other side of the planet. Of course a lot of this also comes down to lax internal security as well, with left wing inertia continually putting civil liberties ahead of security rather than seeking a balance means that someone being threatened by terrorists has little faith in protection. To put it bluntly if Kim Jong Un *DID* get some commandos into the country, perhaps smuggled in through our southern border, and they did decide to say take out "Bob's theater" what are the odds that the US under Obama would be able to stop this, what's more even in a purely reactive sense, what would we do in response? Probably not much.

Now, Obama himself mentioned that the theaters backing down was a mistake, but I think that's as much a statement about lack of faith in the government he leads than the threat itself. He's confirmed it was an attack by North Korea and that he was going to take action... but then promptly went out on vacation. The result being that huge amounts of damage was done to a corporation under the USA's protective Aegis, other media corporations (major theater chains) were cowed, and of course it probably means Kim silenced a lot of people because while "The Interview" is out there and being seen, I'd imagine film makers are going to be wary of doing anything similar in the future, or even just being critical of other current leaders who aren't Americans themselves. Sure, he didn't kill "The Interview" but he probably just silenced a lot of free speech due to intimidation.

Generally speaking North Korea should be on fire right now, no attempt to "win the peace" or occupy the country, just mass destruction. Let the surviving people see Kim Jong Un for all his "divinity" can't protect them and they are more likely to die in greater numbers at our hands under his stupidity than they will be if they take the losses to remove him, and odds are his days are numbers. His people revolt en masse out of fear of us, and his loyalists aren't going to be able to shoot them all fast enough. This is a terrible thing, and I am the site's biggest "war monger" but my basic opinion is that while a lot of people will talk crap, the US standing up for itself and showing it will protect our interests will probably actually get China and Russia at least to back off a lot because at the end of the day nobody actually wants World War III, they are simply acting because the US isn't being assertive and that presents opportunities.

It should be noted also we're technically still at war with North Korea, and Kim Jong Un seems to threaten us every other Tuesday. While his weapons programs are a joke, eventually if he sticks with it he'll develop effective versions of the things we mock him for not having, and then we'll see that power in the hands of a mad man. The movie "The Interview" isn't the reason for the war so much as his terrorist threats, and also the need of the US government to show that it's going to protect it's own people and interests. See right now if Obama doesn't make some spectacular response, which will be to all of the Kim Jong antics, not just this, we're just going to see less faith in the government's ability to provide security. Part of our whole mode of operation has been that we don't need huge amounts of internal security because we'll simply end the culture of anyone who terrorizes us and they likely won't even get a chance to shoot back (and we can do this with bombs, not needing WMD). Of course we've shown that this won't happen so it's no longer a deterrent, and given our rather abysmal internal security due to our complete focus on civil liberties we're simply vulnerable. Basically we need to decide to protect ourselves through a willingness to flex external power, or by prioritizing internal security. Things can also be balanced a bit between those techniques... but right now the US does none of them, so if Frog Boy says he's going to send people to blow up your business you close your business because your country won't protect you or provide an effective deterrent... at least not under the current leadership.

That said Obama is back from Hawaii on the fifth, having secured the local golf courses and waged a successful action against a wedding party. We'll see what kind of amazing response he has, but I imagine he'll either just forget about it, or it will come down to more tongue wagging. Any way it goes, I doubt anyone will be seeing anti-Korea films made or shown in major theaters anytime soon.... I mean fear the dominant world power, don't threaten terrorism, Obama will give you a stern talking too... Oh yeah, I'm sure Kim Jong Un is quaking in his boots.

-

Oh and for the record the reason why "Team America" didn't get terrorist threats is because we had a stronger president. Hate him if you will, but Bush wasn't afraid of using the military, and came from a military family. He derailed "The War On Terror" into a profit grabbing enterprise based on exploiting rebuilding contracts, but at the end of the day everyone knew if he was pushed he'd be willing to stop fighting a "humane" war and start doing things like dropping fuel air bombs and daisy cutters on cities, towns, and villages. The left wing mocked him, but all that crazy "Axis Of Evil" talk combined with him moving troops around and making it clear we might not be able to fight ground/occupation/control wars of two fronts at once, we could deploy enough ordinance to pretty much end the cultures of North Korea and The Middle East in acts of mass murder if we wanted to. Basically while he talked crap Kim Jong Un also knew enough not to push the way he is doing because Bush would have made him regret it. If Kim Jong thought he could get away with it, he probably would have taken similar actions against a better movie for similar reasons, but Bush wouldn't have tolerated it, and really I don't think the theaters would have been as easily intimidated.

Look at it this way, let's say Bush was the mad-dog warmonger that liberals like to paint him as. What are you more afraid of? a giant mastiff looking for an excuse to rip your throat out, or some yipping Toy Poodle that hides under the bed when confronted? Part of the whole game is intimidation, like it or not, some scary seeming dude with his finger over the button and a bunch of "calmer" advisors seeming to talk him down is more effective than a Mr. Rogers routine. Granted a lot of it is theater, as I've said before, I'm very critical of Bush because he sold the war for one thing but then used it to line his pockets, he gained some things, but nothing like what he promised going in. For example he never even tried to force the massive cultural reforms and free the women throughout the region, when things like that were a big part of how he sold going down there to bust heads to begin with... it was about security, but all the good we could do in a long term sense. Basically I agreed with the war, but I did not agree with what Bush turned it into, that said the simple fact was he was not a dude people were going to push around the way they do Obama.

hell, i grew up with Hot Shots! killing Saddam Hussein. Twice.

@Therumancer

That was a very interesting read, I must say that for myself being in a different country its difficult to see things from that perspective, so thank you.

However I am obviously leading to a few criticisms. Nothing major, but you are aware that a government isn't run by a single person? Obama may be president but there are many people involved in the decision making process and indeed do make decisions without his involvement. If I understand your laws correctly (so I may be wrong, forgive me but I want to explore this a bit) the one thing he can do that no one else working in government can, is to declare war; that decision falls on him and no one else. Therefore inability to protect the citizens may not necessarily be the fault of one person.

Additionally consider the nature of "modern warfare", how does one protect against terror attacks? If a single individual in your country is sympathetic to the ideals of another nation no amount of boarder security will help. you will see bombings of theater chains left right and center, that nothing short of a futuristic "Thought Police" could prevent.

Again I may be wholly wrong with these perceptions, in my own country of South Africa we have a multitude of disparate cultures that all have a variety of agendas, so instances of art defamation can and do occur. Nothing violent, mind, but the possibility of ideologies being wrought manifest through excessive action is present.

That said I don't mean to imply a comparison of cultures and say that one is better than another, but I do think additional perceptions are valuable.

Also is should go without saying that I don't speak for all the people here.

CelestDaer:
What's 'Team Hollywood'?

The Movie Police?

OT: So... What you're saying is... that I... should be expecting the return of King of the Hill, Mr. Bob?

Otherwise, I should be more surprised that I haven't seen The Interview yet just to see the character do what I expect them to do and just go from there...

Not too difficult to talk about with later generations. They can easily open up a discussion of globalism and cyberwarfare with it.

Things with historical value doesn't necessarily need to have artistic value. The controversy surrounding it is important enough then what's actually in it.

Who's we?

North korea got worked up about it, we got worked up about their attack on sony, and once north korea's internet got shut down, the release of the movie is little more than the statement that we're not keen on putting up with NK threats.

The movie is, because of north korea, a symbol of not putting up with NK bullshit. I've never seen it, and while it doesn't sound like a bad movie, it's not high on my to-see priority list, but that doesn't make symbolically spitting in the face of the NK officials making threats around the movie any less sweet.

ccggenius12:
I find myself thinking that the movie would have been better if it had been about Castro. Just, automatically better. Maybe it's because I see plenty of jokes at Dear Leader 2.0's expense online already, but ehh. Of course, part of me says that if it WERE about Castro, and the movie was made a decade ago, he'd probably be cool with being IN the movie, so make of that what you will.

Yeah but the whole interview scene would probably not work with Castro with Cuba's free education and high literacy levels, free healthcare and long life expectancy and hardly a sign of malnourishment anywhere. In fact it's apt to bring up Cuba as it shows the vast difference between communism and fascism. When the soviet union fell both the DPRK and Cuba lost their main supplier of oil, whilst famine swept the DPRK life expectancy surged in Cuba as people were told to farm every piece of land they could, including flower beds on the roadside, the people of Cuba had never eaten so well.

The movie? It was good, It was what i expected, and it was funny enough.

The whole thing about everyone getting worked up? Well no one really got worked up, Sony capitalised on bad press, Obama ignored independent security experts who said it's very unlikely that DPRK was involved. The DPRK got upset that Obama pointed the finger at them and demanded a joint investigation. Then it comes out it was a disgruntled ex-employee or some shit. Got to love good ol' american intelligence, and too boot? Obama placed sanctions on DPRK for the hack yesterday. That's it, lets poke a highly nationalised and militarised nation that have fuck all to lose with a stick, got to love good ol' American diplomacy.

insaninater:
Who's we?

North korea got worked up about it, we got worked up about their attack on sony, and once north korea's internet got shut down, the release of the movie is little more than the statement that we're not keen on putting up with NK threats.

The movie is, because of north korea, a symbol of not putting up with NK bullshit. I've never seen it, and while it doesn't sound like a bad movie, it's not high on my to-see priority list, but that doesn't make symbolically spitting in the face of the NK officials making threats around the movie any less sweet.

I see you just read headlines instead of whole articles.

The obligatory fake idiot review.
"Let's pretend you don't know that I know what I know."

I think the movie might be remembered as the first big crack between the studios and the chain theaters.

While some small independent films have gotten around the chain theaters for the most part studios and chain theaters have been rather locked together. But by the chain theaters chickening out over hollow threats and Sony still getting the movie out I think it's going to get people to wondering if the days of the movie theater are numbered. Why go to a movie theater with the ticket prices and over priced snacks if studios could get you first run at home?

Let's just hope that it did not send the wrong signal to the wrong people. As big as the news was of chain theaters caving to threats it could encourage other groups to threaten films for the attention. Imagine how insanely big the news would be if a group threatened attacks against Avengers 2 or Star Wars and the chain theaters caved to hollow threats again.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here