Didn't that stuff already get leaked? I thought at least the Bond one was.

No, they threatened to release it but it wasn't released

If the release of that information was the main reason for your agreement, that's fine. If your main reason for agreement with Sony's action is to prevent an act of war, I completely disagree with you.

This NEVER, EVER works out well. If this is a stall tactic by Sony while they do damage control then I can completely understand... but if they REALLY are relying on certain info not getting out... they are morons.

I also don't think the Bond script is nearly as big an issue as you do. The VAST majority of people who would go see the movie will still go see it even if the script is out in the wild. I see zero reason why this would have a significant impact on sales.

The smart play for Sony is to assume EVERYTHING will be made public at some point and to take steps to limit the damage when it does. As soon as those steps are in place, they need to pivot completely and take a "**** you" attitude. Hell, if it were me I'd go so far as to offer bounties. Free Playstations and 4k TVs for freelancers who go after NK hackers.

The threat of physical violence is a nonstarter. If they are truly afraid of anything it sure as hell isn't that.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but we would certainly respond militarily.

The number one thing that a corporation has to avoid above all else is to be hated. Not just disliked or evolved away from, but really reviled. People still equate Exxon with the Valdez, and BP with the oil spill. The people who run the company work for the shareholders, and if they ruin the brand, they get fired. The result is that, a lot of the time, they play public-opinion defense; that's why Aflac canned Gilbert Gottfried, that's why the NFL is cracking down on wife-beaters, and that's why just about everyone is getting the hell away from Bill Cosby now that he's so toxic.

And all of those things pale in comparison to the bad juju they theater chains would have to eat if they ran The Interview, and someone shot up or bombed one of its showings. Every paper, every 24-hours news station, every website and blog, and every Twitter hound would drag their name through the mud, and their stock would bottom out overnight. Then, they'd get sued.

After the four chains dropped out, Sony sure wasn't going to risk their already-precarious future on a stoner comedy. Of course they bailed on it; it is a terrible Rubicon to cross in terms of homeland security and free speech and American freedom, but as a business decision, they probably felt that they had to.

No corporation will take an F-U attitude, nor will they stand up for what's right. They stand up for what makes them money. That's what they do. That's all they do. That's also what they will keep doing.

Sony is getting a metric ton of hate for pulling the movie. There are people talking about boycotts etc... As a corporation it was a bonehead move if their concern was violence. That is just idiotic. #1 The vast majority of people wouldn't blame Sony ... they would blame the nutjobs #2 you are saying that it is better to avoid a ridiculously unlikely catastrophe and instead choose a guaranteed public relations disaster instead. In no world is this a good idea. Ever.

Which is why this line of thinking is probably irellevent. As Dane pointed out, this is more likely about IP than it is about violence.

Remember though that Sony only pulled it after the four major theater chains did; I think they were the ones who made the decision based on knee-jerk fear of attack moreso than Sony. I'm also not convinced that they thought of an attack as being ridiculously unlikely (remember they made their decisions to pull the movie before the US announced that North Korea was behind the hacks), and in either case I think they'd rather take a more likely PR disaster than a less likely company-ending catastrophe.

All of that said, I do agree with you 100% on
I'm also sure that they are thinking about all of this on several levels, and IP is absolutely one of them. They have to have a long-term strategy for all of this, and if nothing else, with the support that shitty Rogen-Franco stoner flick is getting now, once they wait it out, it will make ten times the sales it would have before. You can't ask for better publicity than this, if you can be patient.

How did Parker and Stone get away with it? There were another couple satires using saddem and gaddafi, if memory serves correct

I'm sorry the movie won't be shown. And wow, the "I don't liek this guy, or that guy" bullshit in this tread is laughable.

The word now is that Sony has killed it permanently.

No PPV, no DVD, no theatrical and no TV. They're sweeping it under the rug as if it never existed.

That's somewhat unexpected to me.

<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=867349431001&playerID=1140772469001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAAEDRq0~,qRcfDOX2mNtWW87VePrJi aFRXUo43tGn&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=867349431001&playerID=1140772469001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAAEDRq0~,qRcfDOX2mNtWW87Ve PrJiaFRXUo43tGn&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

That would imply that it's not about a threat of violence at theaters at all. If you release it to Netflix and TV, you still make some money. So it's about something else, most likely personal information and protecting other movies, as others have suggested here.

The former, not the latter.

That's what I've been saying from the start.

I also just heard that the main reason the exhibitors refused to show the film is that they were concerned that the threat of violence would affect their other films, namely The Hobbit.