Talk:The Interview/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre-release reactions

A Telegraph article about reactions from North-Korea and advance screenings: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10914088/North-Korea-slams-US-film-The-Interview-about-Kim-Jong-un.html –92.225.144.152 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is barely filled..

Why is this article just barely over stub length? Is there not more information that can be put in? I ask like this because I'm not informed on film matters, but I'm wondering who else might be. --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As of 26 June 2014, the film has just been made and is not in theaters yet, But, already threats of war have been made. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sony takes down final trailer but leaves up Red Band trailer on Youtube?; Death scene released.

I'm curious as to why they've done that. Also, should be noted on the page that the death of Kim was released online on Wednesday. here's the source 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bureau 121

FYI, we now have a Bureau 121 article -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial (informal market) DVDs

The article seems not to have much (yet) about the availability and distribution of DVDs of this film on the not-offficially-released market. I read this piece in the Business Times which seems to indicate the production process for the black market has already begun. Do we have any sources on the informal market more generally, rather than just the planned drop of DVDs into North Korea? I would imagine that the streets of Beijing may be an early place where these hit the streets, but I can't read Chinese sources to see. N2e (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: I think you've misread this source, but please tell me if I'm misinterpreting your remarks. This states that the Fighters for a Free North Korea are planning to drop the DVDs into the North "when it becomes available", and that once they dropped them, they would theoretically enter North Korea's black market. The group, at the moment, does not have any DVD copies of the film, they were just announcing plans for when they do. At present, this drop is impossible seeing as Sony has canceled the film's release in any format. Sock (tock talk) 15:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sock: I think you are correct; I was combining material I had read this morning from multiple sources. However, it is certain that copies of this movie already exist in multiple places; so the black market option will be something we will have to deal with over time to improve the article as those copies are actually turned into salable storage media that will undoubtedly see human exchange, despite any legal proscriptions.

One source that talks about widespread release, to the extent that widespread copies would no doubt be for sale (as DVDs, thumb drive imprints, etc.) is this one from the Wall Street Journal: Drop ‘The Interview’ on Pyongyang : Here’s one way to turn the cyberattack on Sony back on North Korea—allthough the usual trick of getting to the WSJ site via a google search might be necessary to read the entire piece. Thanks for the note. N2e (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the Sony hack

This article provides a pretty thorough overview of the timeline of the Sony hack, and it is not already used as a source in the article. Several important aspects relevant to the release of The Interview are included. N2e (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Claim for the film being leaked online a month before its release?

Where's the source for this information? If there is no source provided then the information should be deleted. Anyone have a source for that information? 2601:C:780:234:ADDA:7B97:6C75:F022 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed This seems to have been fixed now, by someone other than me. There is nothing I see in the article now that says the film was leaked online. N2e (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

and if it was leaked online, that would definitely be important for this article to cover in its prose.

Chinese government reaction

Would an editorial from the state-run Global Times warrant a mention on this article, especially given the relationship between the Chinese and North Korean leadership? Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it as long as the information adheres to WP:NPOV. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of terrorism or not terrorism?

How is hacking into Sony Pictures Entertainment a terrorist attack? I see someone trying to assume terrorism. No articles have yet called this incident a terrorist attack. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to be an alarmist and jump on the "terrorist" or "terrorism" bandwagon... but the threats by definition sound to be terrorist in nature... but you can resolve to just call them 'threats.' Maybe 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' is a bit played out... but what would these particular threats be identified as other than simply calling them 'threats?'HafizHanif (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I found one link: death threat. Or a possible threat. Or a threatening message? Or just say "threat"? Probably a prank or a stunt or some kind of ploy to drive Americans away from other world news. --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Or intimidation? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was definitely an "attack" of some kind otherwise President Obama would not have announced that the U.S. would retaliate."We will respond. We'll respond proportionally, and we'll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose." Most of the press is just calling it a "cyber attack". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyber Attack on Sony

Federal investigators on Friday accused North Korea of carrying out a damaging computer attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment @9:15 PM, December 19 2014

References

Fighters for a Free North Korea

Suggestion: maybe internally link "Fighters for a Free North Korea" to Fighters for a Free North Korea, and then make sure that new article forwards to Park Sang-hak#Fighters for a Free North Korea. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How specifically is that relevant to this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Loving the maturity. I get what you were asking, but Park Sang-hak's page would've been a more appropriate location, then requesting that it be linked here. I'll do it. Sock (tock talk) 17:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Was that group already mentioned in the article? If so, I wasn't aware. Park's article made no mention of this movie. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the ones who were going to release the DVD copies over North Korea. We could add a mention on his article, but it's definitely the same group. Sock (tock talk) 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That would explain the response I got. @82.136.210.153:, assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with assuming good faith. I was asking you to more precisely formulate why you believe my suggestion is not relevant to this article. My assumption was that the first thing you'd do in response to this is search the article for "Fighters for a Free North Korea", to verify you could tell me the organization isn't mentioned in the article, which in turn would've made you understand my suggestion. An alternative would've been for me to tell you the organization is mentioned in the article, but then you would've learned nothing. Now, in the future, if someone writes "maybe internally link" hopefully you'll understand it means the subsequent text can be found in the article. This may seem pedantic and preachy. However, you made the conscious choice to reply to me, and you replied with a question. A question that wasn't necessary and required additional effort on my part. I don't think that step was necessary, since my suggestion was clear enough. I did (and do) not question your intentions. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think to check this article for that text, because your initial comment made it seem to me like it wasn't included in the article. I checked Park's article, which as I said, made no mention of the movie, so I asked you for clarification. Now hopefully we're on the same page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My previous comment in this section could've been more civil. Sorry about that. Also, my suggestion could've been (even) more precise. Anyway, looks like Sock implemented everything. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have created a new stub article for this organization today. Fighters for a Free North Korea, and it is linked from The Interview article. FFNK clearly meets WP:GNG. Feel free to edit and improve that article too. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Response in neighbouring countries?

It might be worth adding something about how North Korea’s neighbours are reacting? After all, Sony is a Japanese company headquartered in Tokyo. BBC News reporter Steve Evans, based in Seoul, has mentioned that what might seem amusing in the West is a little more worrying to NK’s neighbours: “North Korea is an isolated country developing nuclear weapons and ruled by a despot so the increased irritation in Pyongyang on top of Sony's apparently new intention to release the controversial film, perhaps on the web, is causing heightened anxiety in the region”.JezGrove (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move 18 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Although WP:RMNAC recommends the seven days period for a non-admin to close it, it is likely more opposers arrive here. Furthermore at the discussion below, a new proposal (from "The Interview (2014 film)" to simply "The Interview") will happen. Rather than wait 5 more days for this proposal, let's make room for the second one, where more comments are likely to arrive. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The Interview (2014 film) → The Interview (Seth Rogen film) – The film's distribution release has been cancelled in all formats, so "2014" is no longer applicable. As a story writer, star, director of the film, the person most associated with the film from creation, production, etc, is Seth Rogen, thus the best disambiguator to use -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - the 14 reviews on Metacritic (here) indicate that it was screened to critics in December 2014. Ollieinc (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Many films have been shelved and then released later, but our film articles on them refer to their year of release as the "year", like G.I. Joe: Retaliation which says 2013 not 2012; Apollo 18 (film) which says 2011 not 2010. If films like these required a "year" disambiguator, would screening by critics count then ? (as films like these were screened the year before they were released) And for films that are released in January but screened by critics in December, would the year then be the December year and not the January year? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Those films were delayed without ever having screened, though. No one saw G.I. Joe: Retaliation until 2013, nor Apollo 18 until 2011. The difference here is that this film has premiered. If a film premiered or was screened anywhere other than just press screenings, that year/date should be the first date. The Los Angeles premiere on December 11 serves as a sufficient date of first release per Template:Infobox film. Sock (tock talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning above and per Ollieinc's reasoning. Sock (tock talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Has already been screened in 2014. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the others. It's screened in 2014. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose People have seen it in 2014, even if it isn't going to be in US cinemas. It's an existing film, finished in 2014. Moncrief (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose--It is named compliant with existing practice for films on Wikipedia, and it unambiguous as to which "The Interview" is involved. N2e (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Change to (unreleased film) if you can. Or change to "(2015 film)" on New Year's Day if the film is not released this year. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• What about moving it to The Interview (film)? Currently, it's a redirect to Interview (disambiguation). There are other films named "Interview", but none named "THE Interview". A hat note at the top of this article could then say "For other films named "Interview"...". Just a thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense to me. If it's the only film called The Interview then there's no need to disambiguate with the (2014) in the first place. Popcornduff (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. Sock (tock talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. I blame my lack of coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha, it happens to the best of us. Sock (tock talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually was about to request a move this page to The Interview. The only other article is the 1998 film, but I feel that this is the primary topic. Besides winning two minor awards, the '98 film has not received any more coverage than any other film released into theaters. This film is the subject of a major controversy. It is far more notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After this move request fails, you should put up a new one on primarytopic grounds -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I will. I'm half tempted to close this one as WP:SNOW, but I don't feel bold enough. JDDJS (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Action film

I see no evidence of extended fight scenes or chases, the definition of action film. I have removed that genre from the lead. This film is consistently described as a comedy by sources. Some call it a political satire. Those who want to add "action film" to the lead need to show a majority of sources calling it that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Streisand effect

After seeing a string of occurrences of Streisand effect and "The Interview" on social media, I'm now watching for occurrences of the two terms, as well as articles that discuss countervailance that might emerge against the "Guardians of ..." and North Korea more generally. I have not found the two terms ("Streisand effect" "The Interview") in reliable source media yet, so have nothing that can be added to improve coverage of the response in the article just now. However, twitter is abuzz with some of that on #streisandeffect and on pages relating to The Interview itself.

If anyone finds reliable sources, but doesn't want to add to the article prose, please add ULR links to those sources you find here. N2e (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

With a mainstream source now, one mention of the Streisand effect is now in the article prose. And with Sony apparently releasing the movie to free use on its streaming service, it would appear that the Steisand effect is only getting started. N2e (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Typo in the Article but Editing is Locked to Prevent Vandalism

It says "they realized Kim Jong-Il is closer in age to them, which they thought would be funnier" instead of Kim Jong-Un. Obviously I cannot edit the article but that should obviously be fixed.

 Fixed This has since been fixed. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrast with Death of a President

The contrast in (especially U.S.) coverage compared to 2006’s "Death of a President" is striking, and I think notable? Then, there was very little mention of the First Amendment and free speech. The Republican Party of Texas called for it not to be screened at all, Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark refused to screen the film, and CNN and National Public Radio wouldn’t accept adverts. Director and co-writer Gabriel Range received death threats but insisted on his film being released, although it only received a limited screening under the circumstances, of course.

References

User:JezGrove did not sign this post.

Until reliable sources draw attention to this comparison, I see no reason for this article to. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do this source and that source compare? --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And this one and that one, Gothicfilm? --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The CNN only picks out comparisons in detail. The rest should not be used per WP:NOR. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Indiewire points contradiction as well. --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Crackle claims are false

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New York Post’s report on Sunday claiming that Sony intends to make it available for free on Crackle is “not true,” an insider told TheWrap. The Post has not yet responded to TheWrap’s request for comment. http://www.thewrap.com/sony-denies-ny-post-story-that-it-will-release-the-interview-on-crackle/ http://recode.net/2014/12/21/sony-hasnt-decided-where-to-stream-the-interview-meaning-not-on-crackle-for-now/ http://www.techhive.com/article/2862027/sony-says-the-interview-will-still-be-released-but-not-necessarily-on-crackle.html http://kdvr.com/2014/12/21/sony-the-interview-will-be-released-at-some-point/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/21/sony_says_it_will_release_the_interview.html --The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)  Added I have now readded to the article that Sony denied the Crackle release. The way you had added it, it was not properly sourced. --Distelfinck (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC) This is why we have WP:RS Reliable Source policy, use of the thewrap.com as a source should have triggered a  Redflag immediately. This is why its better to add these things after they've happened, not as they are happening, so we can address it accurately and reliably. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling all comrades to edit this fashionable article

The North Korean Fashion Watch calls all fashionably dressed comrades to strive to edit the 2014 comedy movie The Interview article in a comradely fashion, in the manner of Daniel H. Pink to improve this article to good article status.

All persons; real or fictitious, who add reliable and poignant information; may be eligible for the coveted award of the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar from the coveted North Korean Fashion Watch.

Happy editing. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Continue the speed battle to improve this article to good status. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

URL missing

Please add link to <ref name=DecPressure> 85.247.144.46 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

The Interview is set for a limited theatrical release on December 25th, 2014. On the same day, the film will be available for rent on Google Play, Youtube, and the film's official website. 108.45.147.83 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Declined—this request appears to have been overcome by events. Sony did release it to streaming services, about one hour ago, on the 24th and not the 25th as requested above. The article has already been updated with the correct information. N2e (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done by another - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

Screening of the film began on December 24th. The film was released online on December 24th. 108.45.147.83 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And someone has already edited the article to reflect that. There is no need for the three additional edit requests you added to the Talk page below this one. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - By another - Arjayay (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Release" section

This section has been impacted by past events. Somehow, "prominent" opinions barely hold water and are a waste of viewers' time. We have two hundred theatres, and I bet that Sony will increase a number of theatres in January 2015 to probably one thousand. --George Ho (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify? Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; the section has been cleaned up already. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

#1 most viewed this week

This is currently THE most viewed article on Wikipedia this week. Lets try to keep this in mind when we're making edits and aim higher than usual with our grammar and sentence structure. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Release Date?

One of the trailers says "Christmas" and one says "Feb 6". What's the deal here? Has the film been bumped again as Sony scrambles to water it down?

Or is this an old trailer, and the movie was intended for Feb 6 of THIS (2014) year at some point?

Most news sources go with 25 Dec -- but an official trailer is an official trailer...not like it could be a TYPO or anything....

???? 209.172.23.66 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

UK release date is February, mate. December 25 is in the United States. Sock (tock talk) 04:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The new york times says in an article released 25 minutes back that the interview will be running in select theaters on chrismas day. It was a breaking news article - I think we should put this in the article. −−−The movie was SCRATCHED it will NEVER be released according to Sony(at least as of 12/18/14)

Please look at the dates of these posts. This is four days old. Sock (tock talk) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The director Judd Apatow last week predicted the film would be available on BitTorrent within six weeks. @13.52 EST 21 December 2014

Yeah it's on torrent already with the version used being released around 2330 GMT on the 24th. I have a copy and can contribute to the plot if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.111.81 (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I suggest this plot summary, I seek consensus

Celebrity Journalist Dave Skylark (Franco) proposed an interview to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (Park), after knowing that Kim liked his show.

After Kim accepted the interview they were contacted by the CIA that suggested they kill Kim. They agreed with the plan.

After they reached North Korea, Dave was having second thoughts about the plan because he began thinking Kim was a good person as he had a pleasant personality.

David finally discovered that Kim was a master manipulator and decided to continue with the plan to kill him, but Sook (Diana Bang), who was responsible for communications in the regime, convinced them that it was useless to kill him because someone else from the regime would take his place and it was better to expose his lies.

So they decided to do it, and in the interview Dave asked questions that were not included in the scripted interview and made him look like a dislikable person.

David, Aaron and Sook escaped in a tank, but were met with Kim from a helicopter and managed to destroy Kim's helicopter from the tank.

Dave and Aaron left to America on a boat while Wind of Change (Scorpions song) song was playing in the background while Sook stayed to ensure that power was transferred to the right people. After that North Korea held free elections.

Finally, Dave publishes a book that explains everything except the participation of the CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Though I admire your commitment to brevity, this is probably too short - though I haven't seen the film so I can't say for sure (and am not in a position to write a better one). It's also not very well written. For one thing, it should be written in the present tense. Have a look at WP:PLOTSUM for Wikipedia guidelines about film summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Plot (part 1)

The movie starts off with David Skylark interviewing Eminem about some anti-geriatric lyrics of a recent song of his while Aaron Rapoport remains in the studio communicating to him via an earpiece. They hit a media jackpot when Eminem declares himself to be gay openly on TV. Suddenly his publicist breaks into the studio and wrestles with Aaron to cut off the camera feed, and in the ensuing scuffle a star shaped cutaway is triggered repeatedly. Later, after the show, David takes Aaron to celebrate a surprise party to celebrate their thousandth episode. David gives a moving speech praising Aaron for his role in moving the show into the top fifteen. As they celebrate in the party, Aaron meets an old classmate who he hasn't seen since graduation, who insinuates that Aaron is reporting on vacuous news while he reports on more serious news on CBS' 60 Minutes.

Subsequently, during an episode where they expose Rob Lowe as being secretly bald, Aaron feels discontent with what he is doing, especially when their show is cut off by a breaking news update that North Korea is preparing ICBMs (and David starts swearing). Afterwards, the two of them take a walk outside the studio where, after being confronted by David about his unhappiness, Aaron reveals that he regrets his inability to cover more serious news.

The next day, while chatting to John Gare's office about an upcoming interview, David bursts into his room, and informs Aaron that apparently Kim is a fan of their show (especially Dave Skylark). A random staff member bursts in announcing that pictures have emerged in which it looks like Rihanna is involved in bestiality with a goat. David promptly sends him off. Aaron considers sending a proposal to the North Korean government for an interview via the DPRK's Olympic office.

Days later, as Aaron is taking a cab home, he receives a call from an unknown number. Thinking it is David playing a prank on him, he jokes around with the caller until he finds out that the call was from the office of Suk-Young Park representing the Office of Communication of the DPRK, who wishes to discuss the matter of the interview in person due to security concerns at the GPS coordinates 40.1326°N 123.9889°E, which is 50 km west of Dandong.

A long train journey and trek later, he arrives at the destination and sleeps there overnight. The next day, a chopper lands and armed soldiers burst out. Suk comes out of the chopper and announces that Kim has decided to grant a 1 hour long interview, with all questions supplied by him. They have 24 hours to decide and they leave when he starts complaining about how they could have Skyped him or told him over the phone instead of making him come all the way. As he pleads with him for some water, a small water bottle bearing the North Korean flag is thrown at him from the helicopter, which promptly leaves despite his entreaties to them for a ride.

Later on in the office, they discuss the interview, and Aaron is encouraged to take on the interview by being told that it would be a stepping stone to bigger interviews in the future. Afterwards, upon watching criticism from other newscasters, David tells him to ignore the haters and smile. They then take an Ecstasy pill each and party. The next day, Aaron is woken by loud knocking while David sleeps on a couch. Agent Lacey and Agent Ludley announce themselves as David embarrasses himself in the background. They enter and discuss the North Korean situation and ask them to assasinate Kim during the interview. They inform them that this will embolden a faction within the Kim dynasty to revolt and overthrow the government.

In the CIA office at Langley, Agent Lacey announces their plan, which is to poison Kim with a delayed action ricin poison which would cause nausea, sweating and diarrhoea 12 hours after contact. They were to transfer the poison via a sticky pad attached to their palm, with the poison being transferred when they shake hands. They would then dispose of the sticky pad in a neutralising lining in his coat. David presses Agent Lacey on her lack of glasses, and she reveals that she had LASIK surgery in the time period between their initial meeting and their briefing, following which David criticises her for being a honeypot and the death scene they planned. He suggests that he shoots Kim on screen, and a bulletproof vest protects him from gunshots, upon which they then escape through a secret tunnel and are rescued by SEAL Team 6. He also suggests writing a tell all 2 years after the interview revealing everything. Agent Lacey dismisses his ideas, stating that they would either freeze to death or be mauled by a Siberian tiger. Later on they practice the poisoning method, but David fails when he sneezes at the last moment and covers his face with his hands and the paper gets stuck on his nose. David also scoffs at the bag he is given claiming that it wouldn't look appropriate on him. They are also given watches with GPS and radio communication software with direct connections to the Langley office. They are then given call signs, with Dave being called Dungbeetle and Aaron being called Aardvark.

On the way to the airport, Aaron discovers that David had transferred the ricin pouch to a pack of gum in a designer bag. Not liking the plan, David protests but Aaron reassures him that it'll look stylish so that he wouldn't embarrass himself when Kim sees him with an unfashionable bag. Two plane rides later, they are greeted by Suk in Pyongyang's airport, and on the car ride to Kim's palace David is impressed by the existence of a grocery store, a Whole Foods down the road and a fat kid waving at him, which convinces him that North Korea isn't that bad after all.

At the presidential palace, they are introduced to Officers Koh and Yooh, who are childhood friends of Kim, and who will inspect their bags one final time. Koh promptly discovers the pack of gum, and samples a stick (which happens to be the poison strip). He declares that their gum tastes horrible, as the two of them cringe. Later on in their hotel room, after checking that the room isn't bugged, David explains the situation to Agent Lacey who devises a plan to deliver a replacement strip via a drone airdrop. David is tasked with retrieving it. While picking up the capsule, David faces a Siberian tiger and freaks out despite being told to stay put. However he is saved when the tiger is hit by the capsule. He then conceals the capsule in his rectal cavity but is later captured by North Korean sentries, and sent back to their room where he is made to strip.

Part 1 of several of the plot. Sorry as I have to go now, but in the meantime someone could try and clean this up and add the rest, if you have access to the movie. Will be back tomorrow to finish this off. No North Korean puppies were hurt in the production of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.111.81 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is far too long. Wikipedia plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. Popcornduff (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

White House Screening

This film was never screened in the White House by fmr. President Ronald Reagan. And he likely would never have allowed that to happen, in spite of what Base Ball Man Curt Schilling insists. He watched very few movies while in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.187.17 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

References

WTH are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan being ronery and hitching flux-capacitated DeLorean rides? 69.142.222.250 (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Update template in Review section

The movie has been available for public view for barely 48 hours, but User Popcornduff persists in adding the {{update}} template tag in the Reception section[1][2]. I find this not only ridiculous, but unreasonable given the circumstances. Of course there are plenty of reviews that have been done, but not all of them are by notable reviewers or worthy of inclusion. I find the tag to be clutter, anyone else agree or disagree with this opinion? I already know what Popcornduff is going to say. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on whether the template should stay or not. However, I would agree with the sentiment of the template in that that article section does yet need a bit more updating.

I attempted some minor copyediting and addition of context to help set the existing paragraphs in time a few hours ago. That edit seems to have remained in place. But the section could definitely still use an update to look at what critics and film reviewers are saying now that it has been reasonably available for vastly more reviewers than the initial premieres. Perhaps a new paragraph, or a sentence, to look at how reviews since 12/24 streaming release are comparing to the pre-24 Dec reviews? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Given the fact that the controversy surrounding the movie could be its own article, should there be a separate section, "Controversy," or is that considered reception? --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the "Cancellation and response" section covers this, for now. I do think that this section, and the controversy around the film and the reaction following the North Korean/GOP threats, will eventually grow to where it will end up a separate article. But there needs to be a lot of growth in this section, with lots of sources, before that would be warranted. N2e (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is biased toward the official Sony story on the cancellation. It doesn't even mention the possibility that it was a publicity stunt and that North Korea wasn't involved at all, in spite of a lack of any evidence whatsoever of these alleged death threats.50.168.176.243 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2014

Reception section must be edited and added to. none of the post release reception is given. confusing for reader!

187.185.71.234 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Cancelation" vs. "Cancellation"

If "cancelation" is correct in American English, as opposed to "cancellation", then how do you explain this, this, and this? Even Google emphasizes "cancellation" in American-related search results. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 11:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We're going by the Wiki manual of style, which specifies "canceled" for articles written in American English; see WP:SPELLING. (I'm a Brit so it looks weird to me too.) I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, as you've found - perhaps cancelation isn't the normal American spelling at all? - but I imagine you'd need to take that up with the Manual of Style, not here. Popcornduff (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Right! Canceled is standard U.S. spelling, but cancelation is not (two. different. words.). Who is keeping this alive? Moncrief (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put that under discussion in the guideline's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the U.S. and using the most recent version of Firefox, mine suggests "cancellation". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancelation is not standard American English. You can find people who use it online, but it's greatly outnumbered by cancellation. Why this is so I have no idea (canceled and canceling are standard U.S. spellings), but it is nonetheless the case. Look up usage by country in Google Books. Look at the majority of U.S. dictionaries online (try onelook.com), where cancelation, if listed at all (often as not it isn't), is given as a secondary spelling. The Grammarist[3] says it well: The spelling distinction extends to cancelers and cancellers, as well as to cancelable and cancellable, but it does not not extend to cancellation, which everywhere is spelled with two l’s. The spelling "cancelation" is just not standard, looks strange, and should not be used in this article. Moncrief (talk)

You might have uncovered another angle there - perhaps "canceled" is correct in AmE but "cancelled" isn't, then. Popcornduff (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it! See my Grammarist link above. You've got it. Moncrief (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems we have a consensus then. Have updated the article. George Ho, if your entire objection was about "cancellation" only and not "canceled", I apologise, I misunderstood you. (If so, you might want to update your edit to the Manual of Style?)Popcornduff (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My objection is making canceled the only correct spelling in American English. Both ways are correct, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary. I checked Oxford dictionary; canceled is American, while cancelled is British. That's just Oxford though. Which is more reliable, Oxford or Merriam-Webster? --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And we've not got a consensus yet. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We have consensus about "cancellation" being American spelling. That wasn't mentioned on the MoS and was a mistake by me, d'oh. 12:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice "cancellation" has become "cancelation" again, despite what I thought was the consensus here. Anyone want to defend that before I change it back? Popcornduff (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and I'd like to apologize for introducing the misconception of "cancelation". I'm a Canadian English speaker (so I use cancelled, cancelling, etc.), and I inappropriately operated using MOS:SPELLING where it didn't actually work. Sorry, everyone! Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding box office gross.

Seeing as this section is changing often on this article, i think its best to clarify to prevent future edit wars. Is the box office sum meant to include both the theater gross as well as the online rental gross, simply the theater gross or sub sections for both? Thehack771 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Probably just theatres. Template:infobox film doesn't encourage inclusion of online rentals. I have to deal with others re-adding what the other editor removed. --George Ho (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconding George, this is only meant to be the theatrical gross. It would require a pretty considerable rehauling of many, many articles if we decided to include VOD gross now. The "Box office" section can cover it. Sock (tock talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What about just adding it this way using the "<br>" code...

US$2.9 million in theater sales
US$14 million including VOD

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Scalhotrod, is that that formatting introduces an entirely new standard of writing for so many films. We would have to do a total rehaul of damn near every film article if we want to include VOD. This film, while unique in its high budget, is not unique in its low-theater count and its VOD release coinciding with its theatrical one. However, we don't include VOD for smaller films like that either. There was recently a discussion here clarifying the situation. The "Gross" field was actually renamed "Box office" to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. We'd need to start a discussion at WT:FILM to see if consensus as changed. Sock (tock talk) 19:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, point taken. I see the dilemma and thank you for explaining it. I was just trying to offer a technical solution that works in a different area of Entertainment articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the heavy-handed reply, I've been dealing with a lot of people repeatedly restoring the same edits today, this edit being one of them. It wears on you a bit, and I'm a little snappier than usual. I know you were just looking for a solution, didn't mean to hammer you over the head. Sock (tock talk) 19:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for, you're "preaching to the choir".. :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move 24 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The Interview (2014 film) → The Interview – The only other article with the title The Interview is the 1998 film, but I feel that this is the primary topic. Besides winning two minor awards, the '98 film has not received any more coverage than any other film released into theaters. This film is the subject of a major controversy. The controversy has led to cyber terrorist and even President Obama has commented on the movie. JDDJS (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I agree.The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, the film is getting a lot of attention right now. However, it's not now, and most likely will not be in the future, the primary meaning of "the interview", and capitalization is not enough to distinguish it from other things with this title. Should it become clear, in the fullness of time, that it is the primary meaning of the phrase "the interview", then of course it should be moved. Popular attention at this particular moment is not a way to determine this. I have to ask: what's so objectionable about the phrase "2014 film" to cause multiple move requests with the rationale "surely there's some other title"? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - For starters the Disambiguation page... Interview (disambiguation), this is just another entry for that page and no reason for it to be given special attention because of momentary popularity. Plus, its not as simple as a single move. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could you explain your last point? How is it not as simple as a single move? If this passes, the only page that will be moved is this one. The only other housekeeping would be editing the disambiguation and creating a hatnote. Tavix |  Talk 

• Oppose – Please see the discussion from less than a week ago. That even included "(film)" and it was still rejected. I'd be shocked if that didn't happen here as well. My reasonings remain the same as in that discussion. Sock (tock talk) 04:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "The Interview (film)" is not viable because it is ambiguous, and parenthetically disambiguated titles are not primary topic viable per WP:PRECISE and WP:NCF. However, the proposal here is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion which is a different matter, thus is viable for use if this film is the primary topic for the undisambiguated term "The Interview" ; indeed in the closure of that requested move that you pointed out, it is specifically mentioned that "The Interview" undisambiguated title seems to be a supportable title. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @67.70.35.44: I was arguing that, if this isn't even the primary film, how can it be the primary topic? I should've worded my argument better, and I actually think WP:NCF is a strong argument against this move. This is also some clear-cut WP:RECENTISM. It is very, very, very likely that this move will happen in the future, but it isn't the future yet. This movie hasn't even been out for an entire week, and we're saying it's primary topic? No way. As IJBall said, let's come back in two years. Sock (tock talk) 12:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC encyclopedic-ness and long term significance. This film sparked an international incident, and became a focus of political debate on the pitfalls of giving in to extortion, and of crime and terrorism due to the threats of attacks. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Despite recent news fiasco (terrorist, cyberattacks, whatever you call it), the film itself hasn't reached the levels of significance and/or popularity per two common criteria. The film will be released in selected theatres. I'm sure this is a publicity stunt or an attempt to turn everybody against the United States when FBI and Obama blamed North Korea with flimsy evidence. --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This film is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other Interview subjects don't come close to this in terms of notability, and there's no reason to believe that will change. Interview (disambiguation) already stands as its own page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between recognition and historical significance. Sony Pictures Entertainment hack is more significant than the film itself. --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what is the primary topic here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no required criterion for primacy, what are your criteria? --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Interview" and "The Interview" have far too many meanings to usurp the word/phrase, no matter how much in the news this particular film may be at the moment. As another editor said above, "[I]t's not now, and most likely will not be in the future, the primary meaning of 'the interview', and capitalization is not enough to distinguish it from other things with this title. Should it become clear, in the fullness of time, that it is the primary meaning of the phrase 'the interview', then of course it should be moved. Popular attention at this particular moment is not a way to determine this." If anyone is searching Wikipedia and wants to find this film, it's as simple as typing in the first 8 letters, and it pops right up. So there's no logical reason to move the title even for searchers. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF and WP:RECENTISM. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Besides the fact that "The Interview" could refer to many different things, I would agree that highlighting the current controversy is recentism. Theo van Gogh was assassinated while he was planning on remaking his 2003 film. The assassination received widespread public attention and was a huge media event worldwide. The American remake, directed by Steve Buscemi, received several nominations and a win for "best screenplay" at Fantasporto. See [4] and [5]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • One: What else could The Interview refer to? Early this year, the 98 film was located there. Two: I have no idea what Theo van Gogh has to do with this. JDDJS (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There are currently only two articles that start with "The Interview" Up until June 2014, The Interview (1998 film) was located at the The Interview, but was moved because of this film. So really this discussion should just be about whether this film is the primary topic over the 98 film. JDDJS (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed, on both points. But this proposal will fail, at least at this time, for recentism and other reasons. After things have settled down, in a few months, it will likely be very obvious that this 2014 film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In my view, a proposal at that time would likely be successful. N2e (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Classic case of recentism. Zarcadia (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The film is a big deal right now, but long-term significance is an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with Softlavender that: "Interview" and "The Interview" have far too many meanings to usurp the word/phrase, no matter how much in the news this particular film may be at the moment. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support. For one, I think this is easily the primary topic. The film is a major news story as the nominator pointed out. Recentism aside, I do feel like this film will have long term significance. The way it has been released will be a case study for a long time to come. I feel it will have long lasting political relevance in relations between North Korea and the US. The film is a catalyst for a number of hackings and it will have an enduring impact on cyber security and the like, especially how it pertains to major companies and even governments. However, I'm supporting for another reason, and it is one seems to be fairly overlooked: navigability. The Interview, which is by far the most common search term for this film, currently redirects to a disambiguation page. Once there, the user will have to sort through 9 different films in order to find this one. There is a lot of unnecessary work involved there for a film of this significance. If moved, this problem is cleared up, and in case someone is actually looking for the relatively obscure 1998 film, a hatnote can take them there. Tavix |  Talk  07:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons detailed above. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose due to WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM – let's revisit in two years. --IJBall (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as per Zarcadia (talk)'s December 24, 2014, comment. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Filming Locations

The movie was filmed primarily in Vancouver, Canada.

JCJeff (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

Please include the VOD revenue profits in the Box Office section of the info table. Change $5.4 million to $36.4 million. See http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sonys-the-interview-vod-box-office-20150106-story.html Slugiscool99 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The reference provided does not support this change. It explicitly makes a distinction between VOD and box office. The requested change would be misleading.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  01:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up Request: While I agree this information should not be included in Box Office Revenue, this information certainly belongs underneath the 'Reception' heading where there is a subheading for Box Office and Online Rentals. Can we add this information there? P.S. This information is listed in the heading of the article, but somehow I missed it even though I read the whole thing. Perhaps we could reiterate it in the section where it seems most appropriate?

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It would still require a reliable reference that supports the change. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

My request regards adding the digital box office of the film. Andrias1 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2015

89.201.138.199 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC) its all good

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a spelling error

I don't have an account, and so I can't fix it myself.

If you look at the first line of the second paragraph under "Plot", Agent Lacy should be Lacey.

18.111.26.6 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Limited release?

they're will be limited release of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirusKA (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Fake IMDB Rating

The wiki page says that this movie was well received on IMDB. At face value this is true but it is only thanks to the posters of 4chan, who decided it would be funny to raise the ranking to 10/10. Along with IMDB reviews claiming the movie cured them of cancer. Kek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.199.137 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Remove the Obama picture?

Yes, he is the President. The 2009 picture doesn't reflect his words in 2014. Actually, Obama looks... something that I cannot describe accurate. Menacing is inappropriate; so is vicious. I tried find a good 2014 photo without luck. --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact the Interview cancellation escalated to White House intervention is a major part of the story. It's nice to illustrate major parts of the article with images. I don't find his visage particularly scary. Popcornduff (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with George - the addition of the Obama picture contributes nothing meaningful to the article. If there is going to be a picture of Obama here, shouldn't it be one that is related to the subject matter, such as this? File:Https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/obama-press-conference-interview.jpg?w=650 198.48.173.81 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. What is the licensing of that image? -- ADTC ^{Talk Ctrb} 12:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Add link to KCNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Central_News_Agency Vac33 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done It's already linked in the sentence beginning "On June 25, 2014, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)...". Stickee (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove picture of Sony Picture Entertainment's entrance

Sorry, can't remember my login, so I'm posting this here.

For the same reason the picture of Obama was removed, Sony Pictures Entertainment's entrance does not bear any relation to the article. If a picture of the entrance is posted, it should reflect the content of the article (for example, a picture of some kind of protest at the entrance due to this film, or whatever). Not a picture from 2009.

173.165.219.70 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Is there any good picture with appropriate license for the purpose? -- ADTC ^{Talk Ctrb} 12:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The picture of Obama wasn't removed, was it? I think it's appropriate for the article.

I also don't think the Sony photo is that bad. It'd be nice to get something a bit more relevant, but until we find that photo, I don't think we should remove the Sony one. Popcornduff (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)