[jcadam]

link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

[Ozmodiar]

Homophobic epithets are awesome.

[loki74]

nice.

although this probably oughtta be in the PL...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by jcadam

link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

Oh look: Germany has had such a shortage of dangerous homophobes since 1945 that we've actually started re-importing them from America.

Welcome to Europe, jcadam!














(I think that was close enough to Godwin to get this locked, no? Pretty please?)

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Bareback instead of Brokeback

And you're a freakin' homophobic idiot.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Ratm

And you're a freakin' homophobic idiot.

[SirCastor]

I'd be interested to see what the balance is on people who accept the film vs. rejecting it. One person quoted in the article says that it's a shame people will miss out on this because of a personal bias. I expect however that the number of people supporting the film wouldn't be much more or less than the people rejecting it.

[jcadam]

My wife says she no longer sees Heath Ledger as a rugged, 'real man', now that he has starred in a gay cowboy romance.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I'd be interested to see what the balance is on people who accept the film vs. rejecting it. One person quoted in the article says that it's a shame people will miss out on this because of a personal bias. I expect however that the number of people supporting the film wouldn't be much more or less than the people rejecting it.

America used to be big on freedom, IIRC.

"I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Abroad."

Sad.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by jcadam

My wife says she no longer sees Heath Ledger as a rugged, 'real man', now that he has starred in a gay cowboy romance.

Debbie will get over it in time.

I'm sure he's losing sleep over that one.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by analogika

Debbie will get over it in time.

I'm sure he's losing sleep over that one.

you remember my wife's name?

edit: well, obviously you do, I was merely trying to express my amazement...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

America used to be big on freedom, IIRC.

"I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Abroad."

Sad.

Freedom goes both ways analog.

People have freedom to make such movies, and people who own movie houses have the freedom to reject said movies.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by jcadam

My wife says she no longer sees Heath Ledger as a rugged, 'real man', now that he has starred in a gay cowboy romance.

It's two men going at it... you can't get any more manly than that, can you?

[production_coordinator]

It's the right of the studio, writers, directors and actors to create the film... it's also the right of the theater owner not to show the movie.

I personally can't wait until it comes out on DVD. It will be at the top of my Netflix queue.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by analogika

America used to be big on freedom, IIRC.

"I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Abroad."

Sad.

This isn't about freedom. Freedom is personal liberty. This is about censorship. At that, I expect the movie will be available at another local theater. Just not carried by the massive chain. It's not as though The police are raiding houses seizing bootlegged copies of the movie to protect the populace.

[Kevin]

Yeah if they banned him from making it, or anyone watching it, he'd have a point.

[Leia's Left Bun]

What a bunch of cowards

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Heeeyyyy....what are you at? Stop it! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!!!!!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

What a bunch of cowards

That makes absolutely no sense. I guess by that reasoning, the people who decided to take "Merry Christmas" out of the stores are also cowards?

[slugslugslug]

Well, the theater people have every right to choose what they do and don't wish to show. And we have every right to call them idiots for it.

Originally Posted by jcadam

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

Think he's actually seen it? Have you actually seen it? I'm guessing no in both cases. I did, and it was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

[Goldfinger]

I love it when people say "oh but, it's their right not to show it". Well, yeah but what's the point in doing that ? There's a bunch of people who do want to see this (very good) movie. And, wow, they can even make money out of it. And they are in the business of making money, aren't they ? Are they afraid of people complaining about them men lovers in that film ?
A movie complex shouldn't have bias and push certain morality on us. It's not their function.
But whatever, we don't get this homophobic crap in Europe so I don't really care I guess.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

A movie complex shouldn't have bias and push certain morality on us. It's not their function.

This isn't a socialist state. People who own movie theaters can say what gets played in it. You are over-reacting. There will be plenty of other places the movie will be watched.

But whatever, we don't get this homophobic crap in Europe so I don't really care I guess.

Oh sure you do. I've met plenty of homophobic Europeans. Who are you trying to kid?

And who said they don't want to play it because they have a phobia of homosexuals?

If they decided to not play a movie because it had STRONG heterosexual sexual content (theaters do this all the time.) What that make them heterophobes?

Of course not.

The word "homophobe" has turned into a word to slander anyone that doesn't share the same values as the person slinging the word.

It's lame. By doing so, one trivializes the actual word, and it's effectiveness in speech.

[Leia's Left Bun]

One again, violence is ok, LOVE is not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

One again, violence is ok, LOVE is not.

It's not LOVE they are against. Lets be honest. And no, overly-violent movies have also been banned as well.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by jcadam

link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

1. You don't need to prefix a link with "link:". We're not that stupid!
2. I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard it's a good movie. Just cuz you don't like gays doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

But yeah, I see zero problem with a single movie theater choosing not to show a film. As long as the government didn't impose censorship, it's totally legal, and I think a business should be able to choose what it does, no matter how shortsighted the decision may be.

tooki

[Ozmodiar]

Kevin, I think we all know why they're not showing the movie at this theater. It's fun to pretend that there's equality and everything, and that the theater also wouldn't show a straight cowboy romance movie, but we all know it's because the movie is about gays.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by jcadam

.

you know you love it!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ozmodiar

Kevin, I think we all know why they're not showing the movie at this theater. It's fun to pretend that there's equality and everything, and that the theater also wouldn't show a straight cowboy romance movie, but we all know it's because the movie is about gays.

WELL DUH that is why they aren't showing it. I am saying it doesn't mean it's about them having a phobia about homosexual relationships.

They are saying such a thing doesn't follow along with the morals beliefs, therefore do not feel comfortable making money off such things.

Which they are allowed to do. That is their freedom.

Funny, when certain theaters decided not to show The Passion, alot of people in here supported their decision.

Funny how the tide changes.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Ratm

you know you love it!

Posted by jcadam in 2002:

Originally Posted by jcadam

It's our turn to run the show now, so just bend over and take it.

hmm.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I love it when people say "oh but, it's their right not to show it". Well, yeah but what's the point in doing that ? There's a bunch of people who do want to see this (very good) movie. And, wow, they can even make money out of it. And they are in the business of making money, aren't they ? Are they afraid of people complaining about them men lovers in that film ?

Well yes, they're in the business of making money, but they can certainly choose to turn down an opportunity to make money for whatever reason they want. One likely reason is, as you mention, they're afraid people will complain about gay content. In which case, maybe they believe that they'll lose money by showing the film, so you should agree with them, since they should be trying to make money.

The other reason they might have not to show the film is that the folks who run the company actually find the content objectionable (presumably despite not having seen the film). And, well, I think it's laudable for business people to sometimes miss a moneymaking opportunity based on some larger principle. It's just too bad that in this case, the principle is wrong, and the theater owner is a moron.

A movie complex shouldn't have bias and push certain morality on us...

Well, I agree that they shouldn't push morality, but they still have a legal and moral right to push it if they want. And when a theater chooses to go that route, hopefully moviegoers in the area can take their dollars elsewhere.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by analogika

Posted by jcadam in 2002:


hmm.

[TheoCryst]

Hm, have not seen this movie yet. There's actually a pretty good chance I'm gonna end up seeing it with my girlfriend, who thinks that the guys are hot. Is it odd that I, a totally straight guy, sees nothing wrong with watching this movie?

And yes, of course they are not showing it because it's about gays. I still can't believe that homosexuality still disgusts so many people in America... THAT is kinda sickening.

[wdlove]

A private business should be able to operate as it sees fit.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

Hm, have not seen this movie yet. There's actually a pretty good chance I'm gonna end up seeing it with my girlfriend, who thinks that the guys are hot. Is it odd that I, a totally straight guy, sees nothing wrong with watching this movie?

It's not odd, except to the kind of juvenile morons who think there's something wrong with a movie about two men who fall in love (and yes.. have sex, like OMFG!)

Oh, and if your girlfriend is seeing it for some hot man-on-man action, she may want to just rent some pr0n. The intimate contact btw Gyllenhaal & Ledger is actually pretty brief. Not that she'll be disappointed in the movie (my GF wasn't, and she was certainly looking forward to the sexy bits), since it's got great acting, a great story, and some fantastic camerawork. Well worth seeing on a big screen.

And yes, of course they are not showing it because it's about gays...

Well, yeah but there's a slight distinction between 1) canceling it because they think the locals will give them trouble over it and 2) canceling because the theater owner thinks the movie is immoral. Basically a difference between 1) just being cowardly or 2) being backwards idiots.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This isn't a socialist state. People who own movie theaters can say what gets played in it. You are over-reacting. There will be plenty of other places the movie will be watched.

I really don't see what this has to do with socialism. Do you Americans even learn the difference between socialism and communism at school ?

Oh sure you do. I've met plenty of homophobic Europeans. Who are you trying to kid?

It's not about persons. I will never deny that there are homophobes in Europe. I would be stupid to deny such a thing.

What I mean that such a case of a certain cinema deciding not to show such a movie because they didn't like it just doesn't happen here. It just doesn't.

It's something I can't grasp. That your society comes to this.

And who said they don't want to play it because they have a phobia of homosexuals?

I'm willing to bet that that is EXACTLY the reason.

If they decided to not play a movie because it had STRONG heterosexual sexual content (theaters do this all the time.) What that make them heterophobes?

Great, never seen a case like that here. I don't see what reason you could have not to show it. If you're afraid that your kids will see it then just make the movie 18+. Adults not being able to handle strong sexual content is just bull.

If you're talking about porn then I agree. You have special theathers for that.

The word "homophobe" has turned into a word to slander anyone that doesn't share the same values as the person slinging the word.

It's lame. By doing so, one trivializes the actual word, and it's effectiveness in speech.

What other word do you suggest ?

[- - e r i k - -]

Look, if that set of "values" includes an animosity towards homosexuals then the word homophobe is correct usage, no matter how that person is trying to mask his values with fancy wordplay. Or as anybody but yourself is doing: spin.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by jcadam

link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

If you haven't seen it then you can't call it "garbage". If you want to call it "garbage" based on others reactions to it, by all means do so. But please tell us it is not your opinion, but someone else's, who thinks it is "garbage".

So, have you seen me the movie? If not, whose opinion are you reporting when you tell us it is "garbage"?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The word "homophobe" has turned into a word to slander anyone that doesn't share the same values as the person slinging the word.

It's lame. By doing so, one trivializes the actual word, and it's effectiveness in speech.

On the contrary.

[James L]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

Hm, have not seen this movie yet. There's actually a pretty good chance I'm gonna end up seeing it with my girlfriend, who thinks that the guys are hot.

Is it odd that I, a totally straight guy, sees nothing wrong with watching this movie?

Nope.... you are normal and obviously mature.

There is something wrong with homophobes, however.

Carry on, you are doing just fine.

[James L]

Originally Posted by wdlove

A private business should be able to operate as it sees fit.

As long as no laws are being broken, I agree.

[SirCastor]

This isn't that difficult folks. When you don't agree with something, you can boycott it. You can boycott busses, or the capital. If you have the power, you can boycott a film, as is being done here.
Part of capatilism is that people can own their own businesses and make their own choices about what goes on there.

Because a person doesn't feel comfortable showing a movie with homosexuality does not imply that the person is homophobic. Homophobia is exhibiting extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality. Homophobia is marching in the street, or fire-bombing a gay-bar.

Not showing a movie with Gay guys in it, that's activism.

[James L]

Originally Posted by jcadam

link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

Good to know some people recognize garbage when they see it.

Huh, wierd. Obvious conservative homophobia... in Utah?

Who whoulda thunk it?

I also noticed the manager was too cowardly to comment and justify why it was pulled.

[euchomai]

We all know where everyone stands, do we have to rehash the argument? I don't foresee any minds changing any time soon.

I'll pitch in my opinion anyway. It's okay for me to think homosexuality is disturbing, and I do. It doesn't make me backward. Just as homosexuals think heterosexual sex is disturbing (I've seen some of you post this).

I applaud a guy standing for something and not showing the movie. It's his right and he can pick and choose which movies he wants to earn money off of. Why judge him...

People that scream "don't judge" are the first ones that do when they disagree. Freedom only applies to other people that agree with you. That is what I've noticed in my years of maccnn reading. Examine yourselves. Or, not, I really don't care it makes the lounge more fun.

[James L]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

This isn't that difficult folks. When you don't agree with something, you can boycott it. You can boycott busses, or the capital. If you have the power, you can boycott a film, as is being done here.
Part of capatilism is that people can own their own businesses and make their own choices about what goes on there.

That I agree with....

Because a person doesn't feel comfortable showing a movie with homosexuality does not imply that the person is homophobic. Homophobia is exhibiting extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality. Homophobia is marching in the street, or fire-bombing a gay-bar.

Not showing a movie with Gay guys in it, that's activism.

Actually....WRONG!!!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia

ENTRY ONE:

ho·mo·pho·bi·a P Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

ENTRY TWO:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective

ENTRY THREE:

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


So, by definition, homophobia INCLUDES people who simply have contempt, fear, or a dislike of homosexual people. It also includes people whose behaviour is based on these feelings. It does not limit that behaviour to simply marching or fire bombing.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by wdlove

A private business should be able to operate as it sees fit.

A business that services the general public. It doesn't give them the right to decided what I can and can not watch. Leave the FOR ME* to decided.



*Not yelling at you WD.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by James L

Actually....WRONG!!!

...

So, by definition, homophobia INCLUDES people who simply have contempt, fear, or a dislike of homosexual people. It also includes people whose behaviour is based on these feelings. It does not limit that behaviour to simply marching or fire bombing.

Dictionary
homophobia |ˌhōməˈfōbēə| noun an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

I was going off of the definition supplied by the dictionary app in 10.4. Firebombs is the irrational part about it. Hate rallys and the like are what suggests a person is homophobic.
I think rational behavior against a line of thought does not suggest a "phobia".

If I don't like going swimming, that doesn't mean that I'm aquaphobic. It means I don't enjoy swimming.

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Because a person doesn't feel comfortable showing a movie with homosexuality does not imply that the person is homophobic.

Little example. If the person doesn't feel comfortable merely viewing a movie with a gay theme, could you imagine how they would feel actually being around a gay person.

It could be that the true issue is that they don't wish to promote homosexuality as an expectable alternative lifestyle. But the last I checked it wasn't a choice that one could make for ones life.

It's not a choice and unless you yourself are gay or bi then you really have no idea of what it's like and what they have experienced.

[hyteckit]

Utah will show in its place: Wasatch Mountains - tale of 1 man with 10 wives.

[Rolling Bones]

Utah!