[GSixZero]

It's a private company, they can show what they wish. If they don't want to show a gay cowboy movie then that's fine.

I do think it's funny that anyone would feel threatened enough by a movie like Brokeback Mountain to make a huge stink like this though.

[Jawbone54]

Each privately-owned theater should have the right to decide what is showed on their screens. Depending on the location, it could be good or bad business.

If you show it in the red states, you might get boycotted. If you refuse to show it in a blue state, you might get picketed. In the end, I think it's a business decision for each theater. Remember that Salt Lake City is extremely conservative. It's sort of like the affiliates that are refusing to broadcast the TV show "Book of Daniel." You think they really care about morality? No, they're refusing to show it because they'll lose ratings.

[Y3a]

Hollywood has been loosing money big time of late. perhaps the folks that picked those movies had some sort of minority agenda?? Proves they have the WRONG people in those jobs.

[Chuckit]

Erm…movies with any kind of "agenda" at all are rarely the ones Hollywood counts on for revenue.

[Kerrigan]

I didn't like it simply because I don't like overly sentimental films with political messages (as this one has at the end of the flick.. dun worry I wun spoil it)

Two mediocre actors, a simplistic plot, and a boring script. The only reason I saw it was because I knew I would get to see Ledger and Gyl..(however you spell it) having sex. Gay people, it's time to be honest here. The sex was great but the movie was lame.

[Chuckit]

His name is Jake Gylennenhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal. Get it right.

[Jawbone54]

Does anyone remember a little movie that had liberals in a frenzy? It went by the name THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

Many people did everything in their power to discredit and ruin the film, but it still came out and made a KILLING. Hollywood should take a good look at The Passion and realize that they could reverse their fortunes by shifting their focus.

However, this will not happen. Hollywood is run by a massive group of liberal idealogues whose agendy is advancing moral relativism, not turning a profit. Their secondary agenda is hacking off conservatives. I say let them keep making these movies and minimizing their profits.

[Chuckit]

I remember another movie called "Left Behind" that was also targeted at Christians and flopped like dying fish. To suggest that any one ideology is a guarantee to success or failure is kind of oversimplifying things. Christian also protest Harry Potter — is that another example of those "hacking off conservatives," morally relativistic works that won't turn a profit?

[Jawbone54]

Left Behind didn't have the budget, cast, or crew to be a success.

[Chuckit]

Correct: It sucked. This demonstrates that the success of "Passion of the Christ" may in fact be due more to its quality than its political leaning, as you suggested with your "liberal idealogues whose agendy [sic, hehe] is advancing moral relativism, not turning a profit" bit.

Both "Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" did pretty darn well for themselves, and they pissed off opposite sides. The fact is that these were both slick, well-produced movies in addition to promoting an agenda, and thus they drew people in.

[Leia's Left Bun]

I'd hit it!

[Jawbone54]

Actually, "agendy" is a very fun word. :shame:

[Chuckit]

I like "agendy." Sounds very folksy.

[SirCastor]

I'd tend to say that Hollywood is run by people who care more about turning a profit than anything else. There would be quite a lot more films being made if money was not the driving force there. Then again, there would be a lot less films being made if money was not the driving force.

Paradox!

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Christian also protest Harry Potter — is that another example of those "hacking off conservatives," morally relativistic works that won't turn a profit?

Well, that's not really an example of what he's talking about--HP is a movie that some Christians who happen to be... well, in my opinion narrow minded and stupid in this regard, have decided to make a stink about. He (I think) was talking about the undeniably liberal slant hollywood has in general. HP is not political in any way that I can see.

[Kerrigan]

[Kevin]

I think his sister is cute.

[ledzeppelin]

....

[hyteckit]

Interracial marriages are not normal either. Interracial marriages are not as common as same race marriages. Should we ban movies showing interracial marriages?

[euchomai]

We discussed this already.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I'd hit it!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ledzeppelin

Homosexuality is not normal or equal to a man and a woman being married. We don't have to go and round up the homosexuals, but do we have to accept their way of life? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Interracial marriages are not normal either. Interracial marriages are not as common as same race marriages. Should we ban movies showing interracial marriages?

Originally Posted by euchomai

We discussed this already.

The point of drawing the parallel between inter-racial relationships and same-sex relationships is not about the content of Brokeback Mountain, it is about the underlying assumption ledzeppelin has that same-sex relationships are not "normal". The reply by hyteckit merely point out that at one time inter-racial marriages were seen as not "normal" and now they are (for the most part).

I think that by drawing this parallel hyteckit is seeking to debunk ledzeppelin's supposition about homosexuality and "normal"cy. In other words, what hyteckit could be seen to be advocating is that homosexuality in fact IS "normal" and as such the premise for ledzeppelin's position on homosexuality vis-a-vis this movie is fundamentally flawed.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I'd hit it!

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

<Steven Tyler voice>
Dood looks like a lady.
nah-nah nuh nah-nah
Dood looks like a lady.
</Steven Tyler voice>

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The point of drawing the parallel between inter-racial relationships and same-sex relationships is not about the content of Brokeback Mountain, it is about the underlying assumption ledzeppelin has that same-sex relationships are not "normal". The reply by hyteckit merely point out that at one time inter-racial marriages were seen as not "normal" and now they are (for the most part).

I think that by drawing this parallel hyteckit is seeking to debunk ledzeppelin's supposition about homosexuality and "normal"cy. In other words, what hyteckit could be seen to be advocating is that homosexuality in fact IS "normal" and as such the premise for ledzeppelin's position on homosexuality vis-a-vis this movie is fundamentally flawed.

Interracial marriages are not normal. They are more accepted these days, but doesn't mean they are normal. Interracial marriages make up less than 10% of marriages, so it's not normal. I'm not advocating homosexuality. Just stating the fact that banning a movie because homosexuality is not normal is the same as banning a movie because interracial marriages is not normal.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The point of drawing the parallel between inter-racial relationships and same-sex relationships is not about the content of Brokeback Mountain, it is about the underlying assumption ledzeppelin has that same-sex relationships are not "normal". The reply by hyteckit merely point out that at one time inter-racial marriages were seen as not "normal" and now they are (for the most part).

I think that by drawing this parallel hyteckit is seeking to debunk ledzeppelin's supposition about homosexuality and "normal"cy. In other words, what hyteckit could be seen to be advocating is that homosexuality in fact IS "normal" and as such the premise for ledzeppelin's position on homosexuality vis-a-vis this movie is fundamentally flawed.

Interracial marriages are not normal. They are more accepted these days, but doesn't mean they are normal. Interracial marriages make up less than 10% of marriages, so it's not normal. I'm not advocating homosexuality. Just stating the fact that banning a movie because homosexuality is not normal is the same as banning a movie because interracial marriages is not normal.

[Kevin]

I think arguing that interracial man/woman sex is comparable to man/man or woman/woman sex is highly questionable.

But that is MHO.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

The K stands for "Keith" and the D stands for "David".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think arguing that interracial man/woman sex is comparable to man/man or woman/woman sex is highly questionable.

Agreed.

[acadian]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

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

Nope, never happens in Europe.....

[Shaddim]

Oh dear god.

I saw the movie, it was a good film. Perhaps a bit "vacant" in spots (Kim fell asleep after an hour), but it was well acted and well shot. In fact, I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to see Ledger's strongest acting performance.

However, the theater has every right not to show it. It's their choice, backed by the US Constituition. It's not censorship, no more than a theater in Soho refusing to show the movie Left Behind (film concerning the Rapture) or The Passion of the Christ. I wonder how many of the people in this thread who are wailing "censorship" would say the same for those two films? I didn't think so.

Are the theater owners, who are refusing to show Brokeback, homophobes? I don't know, I've never met the people. Are they scared that they're going to lose customers for showing it because their theater is in the middle of Mormon country? Most likely.

Think people, think.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Oh dear god.

I saw the movie, it was a good film. Perhaps a bit "vacant" in spots (Kim fell asleep after an hour), but it was well acted and well shot. In fact, I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to see Ledger's strongest acting performance.

However, the theater has every right not to show it. It's their choice, backed by the US Constituition. It's not censorship, no more than a theater in Soho refusing to show the movie Left Behind (film concerning the Rapture) or The Passion of the Christ. I wonder how many of the people in this thread who are wailing "censorship" would say the same for those two films? I didn't think so.

Are the theater owners, who are refusing to show Brokeback, homophobes? I don't know, I've never met the people. Are they scared that they're going to lose customers for showing it because their theater is in the middle of Mormon country? Most likely.

Think people, think.

Very good post, well spoken too.

[SirCastor]

Are the theater owners, who are refusing to show Brokeback, homophobes? I don't know, I've never met the people. Are they scared that they're going to lose customers for showing it because their theater is in the middle of Mormon country? Most likely.

I don't think that losing customers out here is really the driving force. You might lose some die-hard idealists, but a lot of the people out here don't care that much. The Salt Lake valley here is less than Half LDS, and I would be willing to bet that Less than half of those are strong, practicing people. Among those people, not all of them are going to abandon a theater or even an entire chain of theaters because they're showing a movie they don't agree with.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I don't think that losing customers out here is really the driving force. You might lose some die-hard idealists, but a lot of the people out here don't care that much. The Salt Lake valley here is less than Half LDS, and I would be willing to bet that Less than half of those are strong, practicing people. Among those people, not all of them are going to abandon a theater or even an entire chain of theaters because they're showing a movie they don't agree with.

That's not what we heard.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I don't think that losing customers out here is really the driving force. You might lose some die-hard idealists, but a lot of the people out here don't care that much. The Salt Lake valley here is less than Half LDS, and I would be willing to bet that Less than half of those are strong, practicing people. Among those people, not all of them are going to abandon a theater or even an entire chain of theaters because they're showing a movie they don't agree with.

That's not what we heard.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by euchomai

That's not what we heard.

Well, I live here, and that's the way I feel.

[ink]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I don't think that losing customers out here is really the driving force.

I agree. Salt Lake* has a liberal mayor and congressman (apologies for our senator). Fortunately, Brokeback was shown at other theaters, so everyone just went there instead. I saw the film in a packed theater last Friday; I didn't "get it", I guess. I thought it was OK, but nowhere near as entertaining as Wallace and Gromit or Serenity. :-)

If Miller wants to ban Brokeback for religous reasons (which I'm 95% certain of), I just don't see why he doesn't ban all the other films that disagree with Mormonism -- which would include all rated-R moves. It seems a bit disingenious to target this one film, hence he merits the appropriate label "homophobe".

* Although, two of Miller's theaters are *not* in Salt Lake, but in Mormon suburbs (Sandy and Lehi). He probably would have loved to show it in the Gateway... since nobody who goes there would give a rat's ass one way or the other.

[Kevin]

You are ALL gay.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ink

Brokeback was shown at other theaters, so everyone just went there instead.

Right, so this entire issue is a non issue. What if the guy refused to show the movie because he thought Julia Roberts' mouth was too big? We'd laugh and move on. Instead of being freaked out by an oversized mouth, this guy's freaked out by guy on guy love. So what?

[ShotgunEd]

Ok, i saw this last night, 1 thing concerned me.

People in the cinema were giggling and laughing when they saw the lead characters kissing.

I have no concept of why they find it funny.

I thought the film was good, it seemed a lot longer than the 2 hours it was, but I didn't get bored. It is well shot and the acting is 1st rate. I see oscars or at least nominations for the lead performances.

The Utah movie house may not be showing the movie because of the portrayal of how homosexuals were treated in America (and anywhere) in the 60s.

The gang-beatings etc can only make a community of homophobes feel a little uneasy. Where is the line between homophobia, organised homo-phobia and murder?

As for some of the comments in here and the use of the words "moral" and "normal", oh dear.

Edit: typo

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ShotgunEd

People in the cinema were giggling and laughing when the saw the lead characters kissing.

I have no concept of why they find it funny.

Because it made them uncomfortable, and they didn't know how to react, so they laughed.

I'm serious about that - people will laugh and giggle when they are uncomfortable because they don't know what else to do. That's why there is news about this movie - gay men make many people uncomfortable. Right or wrong, many people are uncomfortable about seeing it.

[Monique]

Why is it such a big surprise that an Utah theatre is not showing this movie. In a state where it is still permissable to treat women with such a high disregard as to force them into plural marriages; they would never accept gay people.

And it is a beautiful movie, because of it, I might go to Wyoming one of these days; beautiful scenery. Beautiful tragic love story, about sometimes courage.

[Monique]

Sorry triple post today.

[Monique]

Why is it such a big surprise that an Utah theatre is not showing this movie. In a state where it is still permissable to treat women with such a high disregard as to force them into plural marriages; they would never accept gay people.

And it is a beautiful movie, because of it, I might go to Wyoming one of these days; beautiful scenery. Beautiful tragic love story, about sometimes courage.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why is it such a big surprise that an Utah theatre is not showing this movie. In a state where it is still permissable to treat women with such a high disregard as to force them into plural marriages; they would never accept gay people.

And it is a beautiful movie, because of it, I might go to Wyoming one of these days; beautiful scenery. Beautiful tragic love story, about sometimes courage.

It's not permissible to practice plural marriage, it's against the law. Most of the women who do practice it grew up believing that it is acceptable. Most of the people I know place women in the highest regard. Because there are a few groups that do something wrong doesn't mean you should identify the whole as bad.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why is it such a big surprise that an Utah theatre is not showing this movie. In a state where it is still permissable to treat women with such a high disregard as to force them into plural marriages; they would never accept gay people.

And it is a beautiful movie, because of it, I might go to Wyoming one of these days; beautiful scenery. Beautiful tragic love story, about sometimes courage.

It's not permissible to practice plural marriage, it's against the law. Most of the women who do practice it grew up believing that it is acceptable. Most of the people I know place women in the highest regard. Because there are a few groups that do something wrong doesn't mean you should identify the whole as bad.

[kellybelly]

Originally Posted by Monique

And it is a beautiful movie, because of it, I might go to Wyoming one of these days; beautiful scenery. Beautiful tragic love story, about sometimes courage.

Unfortunately, the majority of the movie was not filmed in Wyoming, but in Alberta.

[badtz]

great movie, def. worth the time!

[italiano]

my wife and I both consider ourselves to be Evangelical Christians and we're both morally opposed to homosexuality... we just saw Brokeback Mountain and I can honestly say it was a very good movie. Acting was excellent and good cinematography. Maybe I'm opposed to the content but as a movie it was rated 3 or 4 in my top 10. My wife was a bit shocked but also felt it was indeed a well made movie... worthy of awards. It would have been hard for an actor to act in the 2 main roles - as a straight male "kissing" another man as well as other things...

[Jawbone54]

The movie might be a "good" movie, but I won't be watching it. As for two men kissing, yes it makes me uncomfortable. The day that it doesn't make me uncomfortable is the day that I become worried that I've let society numb my conscience.

[ghporter]

"Common" and "normal" are NOT synonymous. It is uncommon but relatively normal for a couple to have twins, and of those it is uncommon but perfectly normal for a notable percentage of those twins to be identical.

"Normal" in the context of "Brokeback Mountain" is "what the times and culture put up with." which seemed to be both one of the story's points and one of its driving forces. Refusing to show a film because of its content is a political statement. It is also a statement, in this case, of intolerance. Surprise!