My initial thought was the opposite. There's no way this is a credible threat, but the theater chains can pretend it is and use it as a negotiating tactic against Sony for better terms.
But there is a credible threat here. No theater wants to go through what Sony is going through right now. And no sensible one believes that they are going to be able to protect themselves from it.
Controversial with who? American audiences? I doubt it. What little controversy might exist over the film with American audiences is dwarfed by the controversy there was over even mundane family films like Harry Potter.
Sure, the North Koreans hate the film, but why do these cinema companies give half a shit? They weren't going to get North Korean ticket sales regardless of the movies content.
As a counterpoint, I'll point you to Chris Rock's opening monologue on SNL last month, wherein he makes 9/11 jokes. Famous comedian, Network TV, IN NYC...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZLKqGhSZs
It got some comments but there was no lasting controversy about it as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, jokes about terrorism can obviously attract controversy, but that monologue was fairly mild as those go. I wouldn't consider it anywhere near as provocative as The Interview.
If it was a western leader maybe, but North Korea's leaders are comedy punching bags in the US. See: Every late night show monologue ever, Team America: World Police.
I'm not sure if one (or both) of us is majorly filter bubbled, but my impression is that Team America (and pretty much everything from those guys, including South Park) is extremely controversial.
The only controversy that exists is in the head of north koreans. You need to be part of a society to enter into its controversy. Do you see any americans protesting this? Of course not, it's a silly comedy. Trying showing a nipple, though....
Yes, I have heard Americans say that it is unacceptable to make a comedy film that makes fun of a country where people are currently being oppressed, and other Americans say that it is unacceptable to joke about assassinating a current world leader (even if the leader might deserve it). Not only that, but all films from this gang tend to be rather crude and controversial even without a political angle.
I don't share the ideas, but they certainly aren't rare.
You can find token examples of Americans who think that Harry Potter tricks children into being Satanists. You can find Americans who think that Schindlers List is jewish propaganda. You can find Americans who believe that Brokeback Mountain should be banned under obscenity laws.
These are fringe beliefs. As a general rule, movie studios do not shitcan movies just because a couple of dumbasses think that the movie goes too far.
Seriously, if Harry Potter was released despite the controversy it caused, there is no way in hell that "controversy" around The Interview is the reason behind this decision. You'd have to be incredibly out of touch with American society to think otherwise.
I would wager that those Americans don't know what "unacceptable" means in a culture where we have agreed to explicitly _accept_ such things as a measure of protection of free speech.
There's a crucial difference between "accept" and "tolerate" and there's an even wider difference between "the government must tolerate that speech" and "I must tolerate that speech."
I roundly reject the speech of shitty people. (I've switched tabletop game stores because I have no patience for GamerGate partisans, for example.) While I don't agree with the notion that this movie is deserving of rejection, I sympathize and anybody who feels that way is not somehow wrong by refusing to accept and patronize it.
Well that's just equivocating. You accept that they are allowed to say those things. Or you accept that other people are allowed to hear them. The speech is _able_ to be accepted, even if you don't _in particular_ accept it yourself.
Because if you say something _should_ be done, you are making a moral command. There is no point in tolerating things that you think shouldn't happen; that's just conflating your preferences with your ability to enforce them.
Movies do not get their theatrical releases cancelled for 50% critic ratings. Particularly not well-publicized stoner movies with big-name actors and fervent fans. That just isn't something that happens. Even Dude, Where's My Car? got its theatrical release.
The idea that Sony is using the DPRK as an excuse to shitcan this movie because of mediocre critic ratings is flat out absurd.
Anchorman got 66%, 84M at the office and a major cult following.
Hell, You Me and Dupree had an atrocious 21% and had 75M.
That's just looking at Seth Rogen's filmography. There's a million more examples of comedies with low ratings that either resulted in high box office results or a major cult following.
Lots of movies that have bad reviews still have a pretty big following. Comedies generally have worse reviews than other movies anyways. In 2014, I hear people talk about how much they loved Step Brothers all the time. Its rated about 55% on rotten tomatoes.
People don't watch comedies to see oscar-winning performances, they watch comedies to laugh. 50% isn't that bad.
Ignoring the limited predictive value of critics, the massive publicity this movie has gotten makes it hard to believe that it would not be worth showing.
