[junto]

I guess a movie about two brave maverick North Korean TV stars heading to Washington to assassinate Obama, the evil emperor of the United States could also be a 'funny' comedy movie to watch.

Seriously though, while the plot of the film is both purile and offensive to the North Korean dictator personally, should NK be behind the attack on Sony (im still not convinced) then it is definitely an ulterly inappropriate response.

Problem is, and this is a genuine question, how should they have responded? Is the western media, specifically the US media going to publish a written complaint from NK? Probably not right. I'm not justifying their response in any way, but would be curious to know if they have any way at all to complain.

I'm playing devil's advocate here before anyone starts assuming I'm some NK sympathiser. I too would like to see the NK people freed from the tyranny and death camps they currently live under the constant threat of.

[dantillberg]

> Is the western media, specifically the US media going to publish a written complaint from NK?

I imagine that many major US newspapers would love to publish an op-ed by Kim Jong-un. The New York Times, for example, published this op-ed by Vladimir Putin last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau....

[atmosx]

> I guess a movie about two brave maverick North Korean TV stars heading to Washington to assassinate Obama, the evil emperor of the United States could also be a 'funny' comedy movie to watch.

Except from the fact that it's a boring script, I don't see nothing wrong with it and I'm pretty sure that you an do a movie like that anytime you'd like in the US. I'm pretty sure the government will not send hackers to attack the studio... For making fun of any figure. In the late night show the host makes fun of virtually everyone and anything. Satire shows pretty much the level of a democracy.

ps. Consider that I'm very critical of the US gov. But it's absolutely nowhere near N. Korea if that was your point.

[junto]

No, that wasn't my point. My point that the film picked a target where it doesn't matter if it offends.

The film studio quite deliberately decided not to make a film about assassinating Vladamir Butin, or Angela Derkel.

I also find such a plot puerile. That was my point. Also read my original last sentence.

[icegreentea]

Well, there are a few ways to parse 'should', and they really all boil down to what the hell NK even wants to do.

If they want to stop as many people from seeing the film as possible, then they should have done nothing. If they wanted to send a message that NK has the technical abilities to fuck up American (/Western) businesses, then they did the 'right' thing. If they wanted to score a less aggressive propaganda win, then they probably should have incorporated it into their next round of talks or something.

[jerednel]

I mean, Zoolander's plot was using male models to assassinate the prime minister of Malaysia and nobody had a problem with that.

[estebank]

Death of a President and Vantage Point come to mind. There're many many films that talk about killing the president of the US of A, some using real presidents and in at least one case already mentioned, while that president was in office. You can find it tactless, and I this case painfully unfunny, but that should never stop anyone from doing anything. Specially bit a film. Otherwise there're large swaths of our public libraries that would have to be burned.

[junto]

Ah, yes, but who's the hero? Not the person who assassinates the president right? They are the villains.

I'm playing devil's advocate above, the last sentence was fairly clear about that, just in case you missed it.

[raldi]

Is your first paragraph intended to be sarcastic? If so, could you rephrase it without the sarcasm?

[junto]

I'm merely making point that Sony chose NK because they don't matter. A movie about killing David Cameron might have set some red telephones ringing.

   Scene. Oval Office. Red telephone rings. Ring ring...

   Obama: Hey David, what's up dude?

   Cameron: um, you know, this new film about me being blown 
   up in my Prime Ministerial helicopter by some of your 
   special agents, because I'm an evil dictator?

   Obama: Oh, yes. Funny. Got a sneak preview of that. They 
   got you and your Eton homies down bro

   Cameron: hmm, yes. You know, could you ask them to stop 
   it? You know, or I'll let the GCHQ boys loose on the old 
   reservation if you know what I mean...

Yeah, it isn't believable, but that's the point. NK are the western's 'devil incarnate'. We can say whatever we want to about them, even make a movie just about killing their nepotistic dictatorial family, but it doesn't matter if it offends, because diplomatically NK are like a turd under the world's proverbial shoe.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they are such a perfect scapegoat, and more importantly, that is why I find it so suspicious.

N.B. If it isn't obvious, my 'script' above is offensive. Whether or not I like or support David Cameron policies is irrelevant, but he's still my Prime Minister and he's a real person with a wife and child. Similarly Barack Obama is not some gangbanger, he's a smart man with noble beliefs (albeit a button that got pushed to make him flip flop on the NSA but who wouldn't), but still both British people and American people might find that script offensive. And just to be absolutely crystal clear, David Cameron having GCHQ hack a US film studio is of course an incredibly imbalanced response.