George Talks to Deadline About Sony, 12-18-14

LizzyNY wrote:The big issue is that the hack occurred. Yes, it will have repercussions on free speech and freedom of expression, not only in the US but in all countries watching this play out. Everyone is wondering who will be next - and it isn't just the movie industry that is at risk. Is Sony trying to control the damage? Of course. Are their actions based on financial concerns? Probably. They are after all a business.

What troubles me is that no one seems concerned about all the personal information that was stolen on Sony's employees and the people in the film community who do business with them. This is massive identity theft and could cause horrendous consequences for the people whose information was stolen. To those who think this is some kind of a game between corporations or governments, consider how you would feel if you worked at Sony - or if the place where you work was hacked like this This has given encouragement to hackers all over the world to step up their game.

I think that's because of the past. Anonymous, Wikileaks, Snowdon.....and then in Germany we had some email hackings too I think last year or so, then we had the electronic eavesdropping scandal with our Chancellor and the NSA .....
Over the years so much personal Information came out about People, politician, countries.....Sony is just one on the list but not anymore the WOW factor like before. People get now used to it.

People don't make the difference anymore whos Information got hacked or whos was leaked by a Person...

And the other thing is, the media is talking so much about the Sony emails and North Korea and Obama.......People don't know what Kind of personal Information was stolen from People. This gets forgotten as Obama against North Korea and Sony email is much more entertaining then other informations. I think people don't see a "vitctim" here. People see Entertainment "Hollywood vs Obama vs North Korea".....

And before all that was leaked with the hacking the news were full with the CIA Report about torture. that was a taff issue compare to what's happening now in the media that sounds more entertaining now.....

And of course it doesn't mean what i wrote is true. i just try to find an explanation why people are not so concerned as maybe others would expect.....

Sony changed their minds


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Sony WILL release The Interview: Execs now change their mind after initially bowing to hackers' demands and pulling Kim Jong-Un assassination film


Sony says it will release the Seth Rogen-James Franco comedy 'The Interview' mere days after it announced the film would not in theaters for its scheduled Christmas release date.
Sony cancelled the film's release last week after the hackers threatened real-world attacks on cinemas screening it.
'Sony only delayed this,' said company attorney David Boies on today's NBC's Meet the Press. 


President Obama later said Sony had made a mistake in cancelling the movie, and that he would have intervened to make sure it went ahead.
The hackers leaked embarrassing emails between Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal and producer Scott Rudin joking in a racially insensitive manner about Obama's film tastes.
'Sony has been fighting to get this picture distributed,' he said, according to The Daily Beast. 'It will be distributed.' 


The vast majority of cinema chains which were set to screen the movie pulled it after the threats.
That came after a series of embarrassing internal documents were made public, from plans for the upcoming James Bond film, to internal emails arguing over the company's direction, to discussion of past theatrical failures.  
Pascal has been especially embarrassed by the leaks, recently having emails released revealing that things are so bad between the actor and the studio in fact that Sony head Amy Pascal calls him an 'a**hole* not once, but twice in emails exchanges.


She also believed Idris Elba should be cast as the next James Bond.
Meanwhile Angelina Jolie was referred to as a 'a minimally talented spoiled brat' in one exchange discussing the star's passion project remake of Cleopatra.  


Boies called the hacks 'a state sponsored criminal attack on an American corporation and its employees.

Sony has been glad for the FBI's help in investigating the hack, and 'the rest of the government has got to get behind it and has got to figure out a way that we can protect our national security.'
As Vox notes, one viable option to get the movie out would be Crackle, the streaming service that Sony already owns.  

However, Boies was unsure how viewers would finally be able to see the film.

'How it's going to be distributed, I don't think anybody knows quite yet,' he said. 'But it's going to be distributed.'
Just this weekend, North Korea threatened more attacks against the U.S. government and other American institutions in the wake of the hack on Sony which cancelled the release of The Interview.
Obama also announced there was consideration to put the rogue state back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. 
The government - which was outraged by the film showing the assassination of leader Kim Jong Un - also claimed to have 'clear evidence' that the U.S. government engineered the project as a 'propaganda' attack against North Korea.

In a ranting post published by the state news agency KCNA, Korean authorities hit back in an escalating war of words in which they say they will 'blow up' the White House - while bizarrely continuing to deny they have anything to do with the cyber attacks on Sony. 

North Korea called the hack a 'righteous deed' - and reiterated that it 'highly esteems' the attack - but said it had no idea where it came from. 

Their attorney is who George played in "8".

party animal - not! wrote:

Sony changed their minds


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's no surprise. After Obama called them officially out making a mistake and made them look like "weak" Americans, they had to change their mind. Weak Americans don't look good in America. I'm sure that wasn't an Image Sony wanted to have. 

And if they are lucky maybe many Americans will watch it after so much Propaganda from the White House not to back down against North Korea. Maybe the movie even gets an special Oscar   Like Argo. Polticial movies against American enemies have a good chance to win...   I'm sure Hollywood wants to make a Statement and the Oscars would be pefect. Or the golden globes.............but what do I know

Wonder how long Sony will take to publsih it....

The ante is being upped, so to speak:

BBC a few minutes ago

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Sony hack: North Korea threatens US as row deepens

North Korea has threatened unspecified attacks on the US in an escalation of a war of words following the Sony Pictures cyber-attacks.

In a fiery statement, the North warned of strikes against the White House, Pentagon and "the whole US mainland".

North Korea denies US claims it is behind cyber-attacks linked to a film that features the fictional killing of its leader Kim Jong-un.

North Korea has a long history of issuing threats against the US.

The latest statement comes days after the US formally accused the North of orchestrating a massive cyber attack on Sony Pictures.

"The army and people of the DPRK [North Korea] are fully ready to stand in confrontation with the US in all war spaces including cyber warfare space," a long statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency said.

"Our toughest counteraction will be boldly taken against the White House, the Pentagon and the whole US mainland, the cesspool of terrorism, by far surpassing the 'symmetric counteraction' declared by Obama."

It accused President Obama of "recklessly making the rumour" that North Korea was behind the Sony attack.

It also said it "estimates highly the righteous action" taken by the hackers of Sony, although it is "not aware of where they are".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Analysis by Stephen Evans, BBC Korea correspondent
North Korea frequently uses fierce rhetoric against both South Korea and the United States so there's no great step-up in fierceness. And it is for domestic consumption as well as for outsiders.

The statement has weight because it comes from the most powerful body in North Korea, the National Defence Commission, which is chaired by Kim Jong-un.

It has two arguments - essentially "we didn't do it" and "whoever did do it was right".

The statement goes into some detail about the FBI argument that there were signs in the computer code that North Korea was behind the Sony attack. it said such lines of code are commonplace and do not prove any North Korean involvement.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Sony details leaked
The hack resulted in unreleased films and the script for the next James Bond film being leaked online.

Details of corporate finances and private emails between producers and Hollywood figures were also released.

The eventual fallout from the attack saw Sony cancel the Christmas release of a comedy called The Interview, a film depicting the assassination of the North Korean leader.

That decision followed threats made by a group that hacked into Sony's servers and leaked sensitive information and emails.

The North has denied being behind the attacks, and offered to hold a joint inquiry with the US.

But the US turned down the offer, and President Barack Obama said it was considering putting North Korea back on its list of terrorism sponsors, a move that further angered Pyongyang.

North Korea had been on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism for two decades until the White House removed it in 2008, as part of now-stalled negotiations relating to Pyongyang's nuclear programme.

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Mr Obama promised to respond "proportionately" to the cyber-attack.

"I'll wait to review what the findings are," he said, adding that he did not think the attack "was an act of war".

The US has reportedly also asked China to curb cyber-attacks by North Korea.

China is North Korea's close ally and is seen as the nation with the most influence over Pyongyang.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a telephone conversation with his US counterpart John Kerry on Sunday in which they discussed the Sony row.

Mr Wang said China was "against all forms of cyber-attacks and cyber-terrorism" but did not refer directly to North Korea.

In a statement posted on China's foreign ministry's website (in Chinese) on Monday, he said that China "opposes any country or person using infrastructure from another country to launch a cyber attack on a third-party country".

At a later news conference, a foreign ministry spokesman said China wanted to "engage in constructive co-operation with the international community in cyber security on the basis of mutual respect and mutual trust".

Asked to respond to claims that North Korea was using Chinese facilities for cyber-attacks, the spokesman added: "I think to arrive at any conclusion, sufficient facts and evidence are needed. China will handle the case on the basis of facts, international laws and Chinese laws."

Correspondents say the issue of hacking is a sensitive one in Sino-US relations, with the two sides frequently trading accusations of cyber-espionage.

The Interview features James Franco and Seth Rogen as two journalists granted an audience with Mr Kim. The CIA then enlists the pair to assassinate him.

Sony says it made the decision to cancel its release after most US cinemas chose not to screen the film, following terrorism threats.

• 22 November: Sony computer systems hacked, exposing embarrassing emails and personal details about stars
  
• 7 December: North Korea denies accusations that it is behind the cyber-attack, but praises it as a "righteous deed"
  
• 16 December: "Guardians of Peace" hacker group threatens 9/11-type attack on cinemas showing film; New York premiere cancelled
  
• 17 December: Leading US cinema groups say they will not screen film; Sony cancels Christmas-day release
  
• 19 December: FBI concludes North Korea orchestrated hack; President Obama calls Sony cancellation "a mistake"
  
• 20 December: North Korea proposes joint inquiry with US into hacks, rejected by the US.
  

Brilliant piece in The Spectator no less


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




George Clooney understands the new age of censorship better than giggling journalists

It says much about the dismal state of journalism that George Clooney, who is paid to act, has a far better grasp of modern threats to freedom of speech, than writers, who depend on free speech for their livelihoods.
Journalists thought the real story was that leaked emails showed  Sony executives called Angelina Jolie “minimally talented spoiled brat” –  as if you, me or anyone else wouldn’t find careless insults if we could read what others said about us in private. As I began this piece yesterday, some jerk from the BBC on Radio 4’s Broadcasting House was still holding his sides and guffawing a fortnight after the affair began. He called in to his studio a clueless British director, who assured us that “the fear is completely disproportionate”. Sony executives were merely worried about leaked emails threatening their careers – the selfish little hysterics. The rest of us could snigger at their embarrassment.
It was left to Clooney explain that a hostile foreign power, and one of the cruellest tyrannies on earth, had succeed in stopping the release of a satire of North Korea’s supreme leader. And as it turned up the pressure, the Western media were more interested in pointing at Jolie, or judging whether a Sony executive had been racist or shouting “ooh, look, they’re thinking of casting a black James Bond”.
While they gossiped, Clooney made three essential points

• The banning of The Interview is extra-territorial state censorship – “we’re talking about an actual country deciding what content we’re going to have”.

  
  

• The attack on Sony does not just threaten one feeble comedy about Kim Jong-un – at least I assume it is feeble, a combination of Korean dictators and Hollywood directors have prevented me from knowing for sure. “What happens,” Clooney continued, “if a newsroom decides to go with a story, and a country or an individual or corporation decides they don’t like it?”

  
  

• The chilling effect is already spreading. Before Sony folded, Clooney revealed that he had sent a petition to most of the senior figures in Hollywood asking them to condemn the theft of the social security numbers, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and emails of tens of thousands of Sony employees. He wanted Hollywood to speak with one voice and urge Sony not to submit to North Korea’s demands. “Nobody wanted to be the first to sign,” he said.

  
  

 
The last observation is the most ominous. Other studios feared that, if they stood up for freedom of expression, they would be hacked too. So they stayed silent. Cinemas feared that if – by some extraordinary fluke – terrorists attacked the audience – they would be liable. (This is America remember, land of the lawyer.) So they banned the film.
In an attempt to shake them out of their funk, the Washington Post invoked the name of Salman Rushdie. In 1989 when Iran threatened to murder him and everyone else associated with The Satanic Verses for blaspheming against the prophet Muhammad, it said

Much of the free world — although certainly not all — defended Rushdie’s right to write a satirical, even inflammatory, book about Islam and its prophet.
Yet when faced with the Sony movie “The Interview,” the reaction has been much different. After the largest U.S. theater chains said they would delay the film’s opening, Sony announced that it would officially cancel the Dec. 25 release. Other movie studios did not rally behind Sony. (In fact, Deadline magazine reported Wednesday that another movie set in North Korea, a thriller starring Steve Carell, had been cancelled.”

 
How disgraceful! How far we have fallen from the brave days of our forefathers!The Washington Post’s memory of the Rushdie affair is only half the story, however, and from the vantage point of the 21^st century, the least relevant half. True the publishing industry united to defend The Satanic Verses. But once the struggle was over, the liberal world decided never to put itself through such a trauma again. There was no discussion. No announcement. It just decided that it could not face the bombs and assassination attempts a second time around
As I say in my history of modern censorship – You Can’t Read This Book  – a little fear goes a long way in Western democracies

The attack on The Satanic Verses appalled liberals. The fight to defend it exhausted them. Knowing what they now knew, few wanted to put themselves through what Rushdie and Penguin had been through. ….If they had discovered a general resolve to take on militant religion, then writers and editors might have found safety in numbers. Instead, they were united by their fear. An inversion of the usual processes of publishing began. In normal circumstances, publishers look for controversy the way boozers look for brawls. Nothing delights them more than an author or newspaper columnist who arouses anger. After Rushdie, the smart business move was for a publishing house to turn down books that might offend religious zealots. Publishers knew that their business rivals would not pick up the discarded title; they would be equally frightened, and no more inclined to run risks. A cost-benefit analysis lay behind their calculations. Authors can be touchy creatures: vain, grasping and needy. But say what you must about us, no author has ever murdered an editor for not printing a book, or bombed the home of a television commissioning editor for not broadcasting a drama.

It is for this reason that you can go to a theatre and see the Book of Mormon or click on Amazon and buy the Life of Brian, but you will never see a mainstream satire of the life of Muhammad.
The only difference between then and now is that modern Hollywood did not even make a brief defence of free speech. It went straight from ignorance of the threat from North Korea to capitulation before it, and missed the intervening stage of token resistance.
Working in a Britain where not one newspaper dared print the Danish cartoons, I can hardly denoucne them. What I said about authors and publishers after the Rushdie applies equally to filmmakers today.

Whatever radical postures they strike, writers and journalists in Western countries are not the equivalents of soldiers or police officers. Nor are they members of a revolutionary underground. They do not begin an artistic or journalistic career expecting to risk their lives. They do not work in well-protected police stations or military bases alongside colleagues who have access to firearms. They work in university campuses or offices, or, in the case of many authors, at home surrounded by their families.

 
True, having all your personal and commercial secrets dumped on line is not the same as having an Islamist kill you. But it is still a potential personal and commercial disaster and the same cost-benefit analysis applies. I am sure that actors and directors can be touchy creatures as well: vain, grasping and needy. But they are not going to imitate North Korea and harm Sony’s senior managemers if they do not release the film.
It’s not just Hollywood which is now under threat. As Clooney asked what about news organisations and human rights groups? Suppose they want to write about the torture, starvation and executions in North Korea; the mass incarceration, not just of political prisoners, but their parents, husbands, wives and children. Do they pause now, wonder if they want their systems hacked, and change the subject?
And what of the lessons other regimes and criminal organisations have learned? The Russian Mafia, perhaps, or indeed the Russian state? Most news organisations can cope with denial of service attacks but they could not cope with all their confidential information being sprayed over the Web.
I am not sure it helps if the FBI is wrong and the North Korean state is innocent, as is just about possible. Subjects would still become as dangerous as criticising Muhammad after the Fatwa if the attackers are Western hackers whose political justification is of the “how dare a Western entertainment corporation criticise North Korea when America is just as bad” variety. You would still have fear of attack placing subjects off limits.
I have no idea what should be done. Inviting national security agencies in to improve firewalls risks giving them access to organisations that should be scrutinising national security agencies. Perhaps the Sony case will force us to acknowledge a truth we should have recognised years ago. The Internet is not only a revolutionary communications system. Unlike the printing press, telephone cinema, radio, television, and all other communications systems, the Web is also a weapon of war
If you don’t want the weapon turned on you, it may be an idea not to put confidential information on the Web in the first place. Otherwise we are moving into a world where criminals can be neither satirised or exposed and the prudent course is to blabber about Angleina Jolie instead.

PAN - Brilliant article! Thanks for posting it.

I thought the following editorial in the Washintgon Post today very interesting--especially in pointing out the difference between this politically motivated cyber attack and those that steal credit card numbers and personal data (cybercrime).
___________________
In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film ‘The Interview,’ we have decided not to move forward with the planned Dec. 25 theatrical release.”
— Sony Pictures Entertainment, Dec. 17

We have just witnessed the first major incident of cyber-blackmail or cyberterrorism. Sony Pictures Entertainment capitulated. This cannot be good, but it obscures a more unsettling message: Our digital dependence exposes us to catastrophic failures of basic services.
Before the surrender of Sony Pictures, the media had generally treated the massive breach of its computer networks as an entertaining yarn. Tens of thousands of e-mails released. Embarrassing comments made by studio executives (Angelina Jolie a “spoiled brat”). Sensitive pay data dumped. All this fed the public appetite for celebrity gossip.

No more. This is no joke.
It seems a landmark event. Other aggrieved groups may imitate the attack — which the FBI blames on North Korea. They will invade their adversaries’ computers and, if successful, use the resulting torrent of documents to cripple, extort or embarrass their opponents.
But this is only the first-order consequence. The hacking of Sony Pictures also alerts us to the ultimate cybersecurity horror: the breakdown of vital electronic systems — power plants, financial networks, water supplies — that creates anarchy.
Imagine a major city without power for an extended period. We don’t know the odds of this, but they are far greater than zero because so much of daily life depends on vulnerable digital networks.
Sony Pictures is simply the latest big organization to be hacked. The list includes JPMorgan Chase, Home Depot, Target, the U.S. Postal Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reports James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). If these major institutions couldn’t protect their computers, why should we believe that power plants and other essential systems can completely protect theirs?
Until now, the motives for hacking have mostly been criminal and commercial. Thieves steal credit card data or a whole range of personal information to construct false identities. Companies pilfer the trade secrets, business plans and technologies of rivals. The Chinese are widely accused of this sort of heist, which has been characterized — rightly or wrongly — as the greatest theft of intellectual property in human history.
Business is booming. A CSIS study puts the worldwide cost of cybersecurity between $375 billion and $575 billion annually, covering everything from stolen credit cards to the expense of protecting systems. The bill is rising. Symantec Corp., a security firm, says the number of significant breaches rose 62 percent in 2013 to 253.

But cybercrime and cyberwarfare are different animals. To its victims, cybercrime can be tragic personally or fatal commercially. But it’s not a social breakdown. That’s what cyberwarfare threatens. The motives are political. The Sony Pictures hack was of this sort. It may be a harbinger.

There are other signs. In October, the Department of Homeland Security warned that some industrial control systems — software used to run power plants and factories — are being attacked by malware (software that corrupts the network) associated with Russian users. “This campaign has been ongoing since at least 2011,” DHS noted dryly. The fear: that hostile actors are planting destructive software in crucial U.S. systems that could be activated at will.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians and many rogue groups have reason to hack U.S. computers. We may not spot all the incoming malware (Sony Pictures didn’t) and, even if we did, the damage done to the network may take weeks or months to discover and remove.
What’s emerging is a new form of warfare with its own weapons. The advantage lies with the cyberattackers for three reasons.
First, they need to find only one entry point into a computer system, while the defenders must guard all possible entry points. In the face of a determined attack, the defense must be almost perfect, not just superior.

Second, it’s often hard to determine who the attacker is. This frustrates retaliation, enhancing the appeal of attacking. Although intelligence assessments quickly connected North Korea to the Sony Pictures hack, some observers initially found the hard evidence thin.
Third, companies may under-invest in cybersecurity, says Allan Friedman of George Washington University. The reason: If it succeeds, it doesn’t show any return on investment. It doesn’t generate revenue or profits. There’s a tendency to skimp. Of course, without it, companies could suffer huge losses.
Are we staring down a cyber-abyss? If you talk to security experts, many are relatively optimistic. They say that our systems have ample redundancy and backup. There may be failures, but rebounds will occur rapidly. The United States is also developing its own cyberattack capabilities that would surely deter some possible adversaries. Still, to have any redeeming value, the Sony Pictures debacle needs to awaken us to our growing digital vulnerability.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In praise of George:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Speilberg's telling comment says it all really.............

Rieder: Clooney emerges as hero in Sony mess

Rem Rieder, USA TODAY 3:39 p.m. EST December 22, 2014


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This November 9, 2013 file photo shows US actor George Clooney as he attends the 2013 BAFTA LA Jaguar Britannia Awards presented by BBC America in Beverly Hills, California. Film star George Clooney slammed the Hollywood movie industry for failing to stand up against the cyber threats that prompted Sony Pictures to cancel release of the movie "The Interview." Clooney, one of the most influential figures in the US movie industry, said in an interview that fellow celebrities and industry figures declined to sign a petition he circulated in support of the satirical comedy, whose Christmas Day release has been scrapped. No one, the actor said, was brave enough to sign the petition, out of fear that doing so could make them vulnerable to a hacking attack like the one that befell Sony."It was a large number of people. It was sent to basically the heads of every place," Clooney said in an interview published December 19, 2014 by the entertainment news website "Deadline."To a person, the reply was "'I can't sign this'," he said.


In a Hollywood saga that has a severe shortage of heroes, George Clooney has covered himself with distinction.
While theater owners and then Sony Pictures Entertainment cravenly buckled to terrorist threats and some news outlets reveled in the gossipy e-mails made public by the Sony hackers, the superstar actor tried valiantly to rally Hollywood to support the besieged movie company.
Before Sony pulled The Interview last week, Clooney circulated a petition expressing staunch backing for Sony's refusal — soon to become inoperative — to give in to the hackers and scrap the movie. The FBI has said that the government of North Korea was behind the hack.
The response by the studio chiefs was deeply troubling, but hardly shocking.
Actually, more like lack of response. None of the Hollywood players would sign the petition, Clooney told Deadline.com.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

USA TODAY

Clooney slaps media, Hollywood for 'Interview'



Now this was hardly a radical document. It was a basically a declaration of a solidarity with Sony, words of support for a refusal to capitulate to ransom demands.
In the petition, Clooney, well known for his commitment to social justice, underscored what the situation was all about and why the cowardice of the theater owners and Sony sets such a horrible precedent, opening the door for much future mischief
"This is not just an attack on Sony," Clooney wrote. "It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country."
So true.
The sad fact is that bowing to extortion — the hackers had vowed to attack movie theaters that showed The Interview — sends precisely the wrong message.
President Obama was right to condemn Sony's decision to pull the plug, as he did at his news conference Friday. "I wish they had spoken to me first," the president said.
But where was the ringing declaration of support while Sony twisted in the wind by itself? And Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton told CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "We definitely spoke to a senior adviser in the White House to talk about the situation,"


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

USA TODAY

Obama: Sony 'did the wrong thing' when it pulled movie



The Interview, a comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco about a plot to assassinate North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un, hardly sounds like the second coming of Citizen Kane. Which matters not at all. Freedom of expression is about all kinds of expression, clunkers and masterpieces, repugnant views and soaring idealism.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]









That Clooney would mount a bold, lonely foray on behalf of freedom of expression is hardly a surprise. In an industry better known for vanity than redeeming social value, Clooney has long been a champion of important causes.
The son of journalist Nick Clooney, a former TV news anchor in Cincinnati, Clooney has worked tirelessly on behalf of the star-crossed Darfur region. When director Steven Spielberg's foundation honored George Clooney for his humanitarian efforts last year, Spielberg called his fellow member of Hollywood royalty "an unparalleled example of action over apathy."
Both as an actor and director, Clooney has shown a gift for making movies that are serious, yet manage to be entertaining rather than precious (Good Night and Good Luck, Michael Clayton, Up in the Air, etc).
Of course, he also starred in the three Ocean's movies, but that's hardly a surprise for a fun-loving guy who enjoys drinking and pranks as much as Clooney does.
Clooney is also a top-flight news media critic. When the British newspaper the Daily Mail published a story saying that the mother of his then-fiancée, now-wife Amal Alamuddin was telling "half of Beirut" that she was against the impending nuptials, Clooney took to the pages of USA TODAY to eviscerate the story as false. The Daily Mail promptly backed off and apologized.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

USA TODAY

Exclusive: Clooney responds to 'Daily Mail' report



And in his interview with Deadline.com, Clooney lambasted the news media for wallowing in the juicy gossip of the leaked Sony e-mails rather than pursuing the serious story of who was behind the hack.
While the Hollywood suits ignored Clooney on the hacking issue, here's hoping they'll listen to this comment from his Deadline.com interview.
"The movies we make are the ones with challenging content, and I don't want to see it all just be superhero movies," he said. "Nothing wrong with them, but it's nice for people to have other films out there."

Thanks, Mel

Thanks to all for the posted articles today. I feel very informed. But this whole issue of cybervandelism, cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare is mindboggling. And scary.

And heard on the news tonight that North Korea's Internet system went down today? What's with that? Hmmmm. Just a coincidence?

No part of the game

At least our George goes out as hero in this whole mess 

Yes Nicky80 George did the right thing. He was smart and articulate about it and his actions speak to his character as a person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Sony Hack: Studios Deny Receiving George Clooney Petition (Exclusive)

Were George Clooney and his agent really turned down by every studio in Hollywood when they attempted to get signatures on a petition of support for embattled Sony Pictures?
Reps for five studios tell The Hollywood Reporter that their top executives never received Clooney's petition, which the actor cited in a diatribe last week against Hollywood for remaining silent as Sony faced the fallout from an epic cyberattack that culminated with the studio initially canceling the theatrical release of The Interview.

On Dec. 18, Clooney told the industry blog Deadline that he and his agent, CAA's Bryan Lourd, circulated a petition to the industry's top powerbrokers and not a single person would sign. According to that story, Clooney and Lourd took the petition to the top people in film, TV, music and other segments of the entertainment industry. 

But reps for Disney, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Warner Bros. and Lionsgate as well as fellow talent agencies WME and UTA, now say that top executives at their respective companies were never approached by Clooney or Lourd. Paramount did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but sources say top execs including studio head Brad Grey were never asked to sign a Clooney/Lourd petition either.

"I never heard of it until I saw press about a petition not getting signed," says one studio head, who asked to remain anonymous. "No one I know has heard of it. We were just discussing that, of course, we would've signed it, but we had never heard of it, and these were a lot of high-level industry people."

Clooney offers a different version of events, though, telling THR, "Bryan Lourd and I were sent a letter from the head of the MPAA Chris Dodd, which was to be circulated to the studios. It didn't ask for support for the release of the film in the face of threats, so we wrote a new letter and sent it to the MPAA. Over the next 24 hours, Bryan asked several people to sign on to the petition. One said he would if others did, [and] the rest said, flat-out, 'No.' Chris Dodd told Bryan that he had no takers either."
The MPAA declined to comment, but a source was unaware of a revised version of the MPAA letter having been drafted for a wider petition.
In his earlier interview with Deadline, Clooney had said, "[The petition] was sent to basically the heads of every place. They told Bryan Lourd, ‘I can't sign this.' What? How can you not sign this? I'm not going to name anyone, that's not what I'm here to do, but nobody signed the letter, which I'll read to you right now."

He then went on to read from the short petition, which included the following passage: "This is not just an attack on Sony. It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country. That is why we fully support Sony's decision not to submit to these hackers' demands. We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty."

Reps for several studios say they were approached by Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton to sign on to an MPAA-backed letter, but that letter was completely different than the petition Clooney described in his interview, according to those familiar with the MPAA letter, and was ultimately untenable because it contained binding language.

"As I read [Clooney's petition], I thought, ‘That makes a lot of great points. That's something we could sign,'" says another high-ranking executive. "But we were never approached by Clooney or Lourd."

The distinction is significant because Clooney's comments and his petition have been cited widely as evidence that the Hollywood community is not sympathetic to Sony's situation.
When told of the studios' contention that they had not seen his letter, Clooney told THR, "I'm not going to be baited into naming names. If The Hollywood Reporter has a list of heads of studios that would sign on in support of the release of this film then they should in fact get them to start a petition."
Sony on Tuesday made The Interview available to a coalition of independent theaters to show. Rival studios still have not issued statements of support for Sony or the film.
Despite Clooney's stance that Hollywood failed to support the studio in its time of need, several high-profile players such as Aaron Sorkin and Judd Apatow publicly backed embattled SPE co-chairman Amy Pascal and the studio, particularly at the most critical time for Sony — when Pascal was reeling from embarrassing leaked emails.
CAA declined to comment.

Yep, just saw it......... U-oh. Here we go..........

Is it panto season? Oh no he didn't.........Oh yes he did........

Oh, one exec yes, BUT ALL. WTF.

GC FORGET TO PRESS SEND )))

I'm not suprised an article likes this comes out. After all this mess only George looks good and unfortunately, he made Hollywood look bad by being honest. That's something the Hollywood Studios won't accept. It is all about Image and Egos. I'm sure George was expecting it to happen that's why he comment on it again.

great article


THR Calls George Clooney And Bryan Lourd Liars: Here’s The Backstory On Sony Petition

The Hollywood Reporter just took on George Clooney and top CAA agent Bryan Lourd, implying they were not being honest in Clooney’s bombshell Deadline interview last week about how no one would sign a petition of support for embattled Sony leaders Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal. A little backstory on why that interview happened seems in order here. More than a week before the Deadline interview, I’d heard Clooney and Lourd were trying to rally a petition; I called and was asked to sit tight and did, playing for the big scoop. So I knew from independent sources, going in, that they were trying to get Hollywood to sign a petition of support recognizing Sony was under attack, probably by a foreign government, and that the creative community stood together. I bugged them every day, and finally, Clooney and Lourd made good on their word, with a different and much newsier and less pleasant story than I had expected to write. That is why the story broke on Deadline.

I asked Clooney in that interview who had declined to sign, and he didn’t want to roll them under the bus. I had no choice but to take him at his word, but I wasn’t surprised people at the time would be reticent. I’d just spoken to numerous reps of talent who’d been publicly maligned in those stolen Sony emails, to find out the level of lingering damage. I couldn’t find anyone who’d sworn off working at Sony, and absolutely no one would go on the record. Some people wanted to hang back in case some other damning documents came out; most told me they didn’t want to place themselves in the cross hairs of the hackers. Who wants to stick their necks out and see their emails made public?

Clooney has a track record for being one of those guys who speaks up against a perceived injustice, or rallying in a crisis moment. He played a major role organizing the America: A Tribute To Heroes benefit concert that played on every network after 9/11; another, years later, for tsunami victims. It wasn’t a surprise to me that he and Lourd would mount a petition for Pascal and Lynton, who a week ago were the victims of a divide-and-conquer campaign and were taking blows by the hour and hanging on for dear life; at that time, few if anyone supported them. I have found both Clooney and Lourd to be truth tellers; I cannot think of a single time either lied to me over decades. I also cannot imagine what either stood to gain by painting a false picture about a petition people were scared to sign.

I do know that THR went ballistic after Deadline broke that story with Clooney. That publication under Janice Min has grown into a worthy competitor. But their senior editors have an inelegant habit of dialing and berating anyone who might have been responsible for a story broken by Deadline (trust me, I hear this every day). When my oldest daughter was a child, she’d sometimes covet a possession her cousin had that she didn’t; to snap her out of a bad mood we’d ask her if she’d been visited by the green-eyed monster, the one who keeps you from feeling happy with what you have because you’re focused on what somebody else got that you didn’t. THR brashly refuted Clooney and Lourd and mentioned a swarm of people denying their claims, but THR did not get a single person to make the claim on the record. Add to that the way THR conducts itself every day when on the losing end of a good story, and it makes me wonder if THR had a visit from the green-eyed monster; were they trying to get back at Clooney and Lourd for not presenting them with a story they simply didn’t deserve?

We’ll probably never know; Clooney and Lourd won’t roll those petition no-signers under the bus to mollify a trade. For the record, I know for a fact Clooney and Lourd had set out to organize a petition, and it’s easy for me to believe they ran into the wall Clooney described when Deadline published his account. Clooney reiterated his position last night, this before Sony decided to limited release The Interview.

Said Clooney: “Bryan Lourd and I were sent a letter from the head of the MPAA Chris Dodd, which was to be circulated to the studios. It didn’t ask for support for the release of the film in the face of threats so we wrote a new letter and sent it to the MPAA. Over the next 24 hours Bryan asked several people to sign on to the petition. One said he would if others did the rest said flat-out ‘no.’ Chris Dodd told Bryan that he had no takers either. I’m not going to be baited into naming names. If The Hollywood Reporter has a list of heads of studios that would sign on in support of the release of this film then they should in fact get them to start a petition. The film is still yet to be released.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

After reading THR article I could not understand why George would make these claims if they weren't true. What did he have to gain? Having his name in the news again? Getting attention for trying to look like the warrior for first amendment rights? Why would he jepordize his stellar reputation in this town? He knows all too well that the truth always comes out. So now with th Deadline article it makes sense.
If THR has this tendency to "beret" then maybe George wanted to share his story with another media source. And Deadline was chomping to get this story.

When in doubt, go with the guy who is willing to go on the record. If someone wants to talk shit but not be attributed, antennae should go up.

George has never given any reason for anyone to doubt his word on stuff like this. And as has been said, he'd have nothing to gain and a huge amount to lose by being dishonest.

Interesting. The Hollywood Reporter is saying that big shots at all the major studios are claiming they were NOT approached by George to sign a petition supporting Sony. He's still saying they were. I wonder if there's going to be a backlash against him for making them look bad?

I'd take George's word on something like this any day. He doesn't lie about stuff like this, though I doubt the same can be said for some media outlets and even some studio heads who are probably embarrassed they did turn him down .

I think everyone has moved on from this story . I believe George . Now we all are very much aware that e-mail is not private .

Yep, and i think my imagined George-response on hearing the news would be 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'

LizzyNY wrote:Interesting. The Hollywood Reporter is saying that big shots at all the major studios are claiming they were NOT approached by George to sign a petition supporting Sony. He's still saying they were. I wonder if there's going to be a backlash against him for making them look bad?

George is like butter everything slides off him eventually.  Not like he hasn't been in this place before.  He pissed off paps and they came around.  He routinely pisses off conservatives yet people still go see his films.  

Studio backlash?  Well if they're still letting the likes of Bryan Singer make films then I doubt anything George has said now will affect him with the studios at all.

I think it's safe to say that George has a friend in Sony for life. If he wanted to move elsewhere at some point, he might get the studios' versions of this episode thrown in his face -- yeah, they'd have the nerve to do that. But as long as his movies make money, there won't be a lot of blowback.

And, as LornaDoone said, the studios ain't exactly standing on high ground with the people they work with. George would be a Godsend to most of them.

I was asking the same question to myself as Lizzy. If there's going to be a backlash against him for making them look bad.

Way2: when you say George has a friend in Sony for life do you think it means Sony kind of needs to cover George back for a while?

When George said he asked powerful People/Studios in Hollywood I'm sure they are powerful like Sony too? Or is Sony strongest and George has nothing to worry about? What about Warner Brothers? Other Studios could create a little "gang" against George/Sony....Is this possible?

Many years ago, Sony had some difficulties with Michael Jackson (when he was still allive) and it was so bad when Michael Jackson released his Album "invincible" Sony stoped the release after few thousand releases and called it a flop.
I wonder if other powerful Studios in Hollywood can do something like this to a movie too. But maybe not if you have Sony as backup?

Maybe I'm thinking too much into it.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Execs At 5 Major Studios Deny Ever Getting A Petition From George Clooney To Release 'The Interview'

• Catarina Cowden, CinemaBlend
• Dec. 26, 2014, 10:23 AM
Kris Connor/Getty ImagesGeorge Clooney says he circulated a petition his peers would not sign.
It's Not Your Patriotic Duty To See 'The Interview'
About a week ago, George Clooney had claimed that the big names in Hollywood were only hurting the recent Sony scandal by not helping to prevent it.
When Sony decided to pull The Interview from theaters, Clooney attempted to be a voice of reason by creating a petition with his agent to stand strong against the hacking and sent it to all of the big studios and executives in the entertainment industry.
Or so he claims.
Because recent news is proving Clooney’s story to be a big lie. Representatives from five studios have spoken, and say that they never even received the petition Clooney claims to have sent.

In a recent interview with Deadline, Clooney claimed that his peers in the industry were basically chickening-out. He read a petition that he insisted his agent had sent to all of the studios, networks and businesses that have a voice in the entertainment industry. The petition asked Hollywood to support Sony in not submitting to hackers demands, to stand together, and strong without fear. But, Clooney claimed that not one person would sign the petition. He wouldn’t say specific names, but he said everyone was too afraid, that maybe if one person had signed then others would follow suit, but no one ever did.

Clooney’s story was a big jab at all the heads of the industry, calling out their lack of strength. The story got a ton of press, because it showed that there were people in Hollywood that disagreed with Sony’s decision. And there were others expressing their own opinions on the matter, but this was a clear written-out statement, that supposedly asked for backing, that was shut down. It was a big deal, that now seems to be completely falsified.

Representatives for five major studios contacted, The Hollywood Reporter stating that their top executives never received Clooney’s petition. Top executives from 20th Century Fox, Disney, Universal, Lionsgate and Warner Bros say they were never approached or contacted to sign a petition by Clooney or his agent. One anonymous studio head told THR:
"I never heard of it until I saw press about a petition not getting signed. No one I know has heard of it. We were just discussing that, of course, we would've signed it, but we had never heard of it, and these were a lot of high-level industry people."
Of course Clooney offered a different story, telling THR that they asked for support on the petition which everyone pretty much said flat-out "no" too. Clooney claims that there was a letter sent from the head of the MPAA which was to be circulated, which Clooney and his agent rewrote and sent back, including support for the release for the film. This letter was also the petition sent to the studios. Reps from studios say they were approached by Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton to sign an MPAA-backed letter, but it was completely different from the one Clooney described in his Deadline interview.

Many high ranking executives claim they probably would’ve signed Clooney’s petition, had they seen it, because of the good points it made. So why did Clooney lie? Well, whether it was true or false, the story was heard. And because of the backlash that occurred after Sony pulled The Interview out of theaters, they had to rethink their decision. So much so that they changed their minds and released the film today in select theaters.

The only way I can see this being true is if he delegated the distribution of the petition to someone else and they didn't get it done. Otherwise. I'll take George's word for it.

I agree with you, Lizzy.
He knows better than us that the truth always comes up, especially in this cases.

You know, this is more than a little aggravating. An anonymous studio talks shit, basically calling George a liar, but won't go on the record. One of the same studio heads who did not say one word in support of Sony when they were taking hits from all sides, but who now says "I would have signed that petition" now that the dust has settled. Who the hell are you? And fuck "would have."

They stayed stone-cold silent when the shit hit the fan, but when Sony semi-vindicated itself, they got together and called the Hollywood Reporter with a bullshit, unprovable, self-serving story to save face. That's what happened.

Candy-assed, two-faced bullshit artists.

George, meanwhile, put his name out there and said what needed to be said, when it needed saying. George Fucking Clooney, not "an actor with close ties to Sony." I take his side of this without a second thought.

he is not so stupid

I just don't understand this denial by the major studios. I'll admit I don't know how the system works in Hollywood but would all the heads of the major studios deny that they ever saw this letter from Clooney, in essence lie, so they wouldn't look like cowards? All these top studio reps must know George. Would they go out on a limb to call him a liar to save their own asses? I just don't get it. I feel confident that George would not make this up. The writer from Deadline seems to wholeheartedly support him even tho George never gave him names. What 's George to think? How do these people face George in the future. Or is this just business as usual and George knows this. He won't give names of those who got this letter and he's willing to let these jerks off the hook. I just don't get it?????

Donnaamarie - I don;t get it either. Maybe Way2Old can explain. Who are these studio execs, and why do they want to remain anonymous if they're telling the truth? This whole situation stinks!

LizzyNY glad that I'm not alone here. Really, why would George piss off the major studio heads by claiming these people saw the petition when they didn't? Wouldnt he be putting his own career in jeopardy and lose the respect of those in power in Hollywood. Seems to me that the fact that other studios didn't come to Sony's defense in the beginning when the s*** hit the fan is telling.

George must do internal investigation   To me it looks to something gone wrong.  All sides tell the truth. But some mechanism or person to let all down.Or internal hacking by staff.

Too important for all ppl to tell lie.

Guys, this was already answered in the other thread about the hacking!

OK I out myself. I didn't find the answer in the other thread. I'm blind so kick me....

But I remember that George made a comment about the lie rumor saying he will not reveal the names. He was saying it the way that the article claiming "high exec from the Studios denie ever seen the petitition" was made up and a lie in order for George to reveal names. So maybe the anonymos People are just made up?

And a other thing was said. That they want to be anonymos because they are afraid of their emails will be published too....

Could this be the answer?

If it's true they have never been contacted by George maybe there was a Person who was communicating between George and the Studios and told different sides different things???

Is this it, Nicky?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or this? Which goes on to explain that Tort Law causes problems in the States for cinemas who want to screen stuff.........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks PAN, that explained why they didn't sign it but I think the question was why some Studios come up now claiming George never approached them with the petitition?

Just weird...

Self protection? They feel they've been made to look stupid.......and Obama's gentle response sort of confirmed that.......'if only they'd spoken to him' etc....

PAN- That's another thing that's bothersome. Sony claims they DID contact the White House about the hack. If true, either someone there didn't get word to the President or he was nit-picking because they didn't speak directly to him.

There's too much "he said, she said" in this story! It reminds me of my Mom's favorite saying: There are three sides to every story - his, hers and the truth.

Well, we know a couple of things: 

Studio heads aren't the smartest of people.

They are backstabbers.

They still think they can get away with shit.

Okay, that's three things. But the math is the same, and we can all do it.

Nicky80 wrote:OK I out myself. I didn't find the answer in the other thread. I'm blind so kick me....

Sorry, I can't find which one it was either now! But there was definitely an article from THR explaining why George was being called a liar by other media.

George has said in response to this denial by the studios that people out there just want him to name names. And he won't. He said that he won't. And why won't any studio people identify themselves if they are sure that George didn't approach any studio heads?

No, I don't think these questions that LizzyNY and I have about "why" would George lie have been answered.

There are reasons for why the studios would lie. Way2 ticked off a few of them. If true how does George deal with these assholes in the future. Like I asked earlier does George know that this is how Hollywood rolls and he isn't surprised by the studios' reactions of denial so he will just move on like nothing ever happened?