Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: _The Da Vinci Code

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » _The Da Vinci Code_ protest letter (Page 3)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: _The Da Vinci Code_ protest letter

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 03-16-2006 07:25 AM

Of course anyone can say anything they want to, make any movie they want to to, or piss on anything they want to (unless they get caught by the cops). [thumbsup]

But free speech is not free of consquences. When someone does or says something provacative, don't expect people not to be provoked!

| IP: Logged

James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 03-16-2006 01:14 PM

Hey, I just thought of something.
If these protests are actually helping to draw more people into theatres for these movies, why haven't the studios used this to their advantage?
I'm sure you can stage a protest for anything.
I'm sure New Line could have used some help getting people out to see Dog Park.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-16-2006 02:08 PM

quote: James R. Hammonds, Jr
If these protests are actually helping to draw more people into theatres for these movies, why haven't the studios used this to their advantage?

How do you know they haven't?
[Razz]

I am more than a little suspicious of many with polar or extreme views in politics, religion and the media. The folks on the far ends of any discussion get the most attention and often get more money.

So basically I wonder if any hothead you see on a talk show or news channel is just some media whore looking to get paid. Their motives are suspect. And I don't think those folks even believe half the shit they spout on TV. They just say something rash and get paid.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-16-2006 07:03 PM

ROMANCE was a doozy. They banned it here, then it was released only to those 18 and over. Took a motsa (SP?) at the Box Office and to this day is probably the most boring piece of [bs]

I've ever had the misfortune to have screened.

Once I saw When Harry Met Sally and the reel ran out at the end of reel 3. We were subjected to at least 5 mins of white screen. Even THAT was more interesting than ANY part of Romance. Romance, however DID pay for the cinema's new seats. [Wink]

Da Vinci Code will do well no matter what...but don't expect box office records to fall.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 03-17-2006 10:35 PM

Huh..? A "Ron Howard" film draws protest and controversy [Confused]

. Gee Whiz, I protest over the fact that they still pay him to direct films [Roll Eyes]

and now he has the nerve to do a remake of "East of Eden". Sad.

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 03-17-2006 11:33 PM

quote: Joshua Waaland
The problem I do have with this forum is that it seems like whenever people are bashing the conservative or religious folks the thread is allowed to go on. However if someone posts a comment that has a conservative or religious view, the thread is always closed immediately and the trusty old "no political or religious discussion allowed" rule is used. What's up with that?

I think that its probably more to do with people more easily noticing that which they disagree with more than that which they agree with. For example, if I were to make a thread called something like "John Doe for President" (names have been changed to protect the innocent) people who like John Doe may or may not read it. People who don't like John Doe, however, have their blood pressure jump 20 points at seeing his name.

Also, remember, a lot of the mods have been off at Showest... I don't know if anyone has really been moderating over the last few days

| IP: Logged

Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-17-2006 11:40 PM

quote:
Huh..? A "Ron Howard" film draws protest and controversy [Confused] . Gee Whiz, I protest over the fact that they still pay him to direct films [Roll Eyes] [thumbsdown] and now he has the nerve to do a remake of "East of Eden". Sad

East of Eden was based on a book, So what makes you think that Ron Howard is making a remake of the 1955 movie and not his own movie based on the book? Just like the 2005 War of the Worlds was not a remake of the 1953 movie. It was Spielberg's movie based on the book.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 03-18-2006 04:55 AM

quote: Chris Hipp
Just like the 2005 War of the Worlds was not a remake of the 1953 movie. It was Spielberg's movie based on the book.

Chris is right on target...no matter how shitty Spielberg's version is... [puke]

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-24-2006 08:16 PM

quote: Phil Hill
HA! It's called free speech no matter how offensive it may be to certain self-appointed "holier-than-thou" people.

Actually, free speech does not cover some things, such as obscenity, slander/libel, or inciting a riot. It has nothing to do with "holier-than-thou", it has to do with imposing on other's rights.

| IP: Logged

Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-24-2006 08:49 PM

Who's rights are being imposed on by this movie?

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-24-2006 09:12 PM

quote: Chris Hipp
Who's rights are being imposed on by this movie?

I wasn't talking about the movie. I was referring to Phil's comment (which is why I quoted it) which I believe was referring to Matt's remark on "Piss Christ".

Without wandering too far off the original topic, what is interesting is that so many so quickly jump on the case of a letter-writer who is well within his or her rights to support what they believe in, but those same people will defend an "artist" who might think he was doing the same.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-24-2006 09:46 PM

I think others have a right to jump on that letter writer. Why? That letter writer is trying to determine MY CHOICE rather than give me the freedom to make that choice myself.

Angry reactions to letter writers, such as the one who inspired this thread, are often misunderstood as being anti-religious. It's not about religion. It's about freedom of choice.

Robert Mapplethorpe can shove a bullwhip up his ass and take photos of it to his heart's delight. I have the choice not to look at those photos. I have the choice to reject anything claiming to be "art" that I personally think is crap. That's my choice.

It is that letter writer's choice to not see the film. That person can even ask others to think twice before seeing The Da Vinci Code. But I think it crosses the line into censorship when that person writes the theater and asks the movie not even be booked at all.

The Da Vinci Code is not on my short list of movies to see this summer. But if the hotheads in the fundamentalist extremes of Christian groups raise a huge stink about it, I will deliberatly find a theater playing the movie. For spite, I'll probably even see it in the evening to pay full ticket price (to make the studio more money) and buy plenty of snacks from the counter (to make the theater even more money).

I'm a big boy. A grown up. I can make my own choices. I don't need some other person doing it for me. When another person or group wants to decide what is best for me, they also greatly insult me at the same time. That kind of censorship comes off as saying I'm not smart enough to examine the movie for what it is and reach some sort of intelligent conclusion about it.

Most people don't go to movie theaters to watch shows with deep meaning. They just want a couple hours of entertainment and escape. And then they forget about the movie not long after they watched it.

If anything, lots of bold protests against The Da Vinci Code will have the exact opposite effect than what is desired. Lots of people will really get curious about the show and then take it more seriously when they see it. Without much ruckus, I think most people will watch it and just discard it as being just another international thriller movie.

| IP: Logged

Joshua Waaland
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-25-2006 03:16 PM

Did anyone ever think that if they didn't get so worked up about it, those people might just go away? The fact that you get so mad and do things "just to spite them" only lets them know they get under your skin and gives them more reason to do it the next time. If you don't give them a platform to speak from, they will dig their own hole.

Anyone with half a brain can see that today's media isn't about the news anymore, it's all about sensationalism. It's all about the hype.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-25-2006 04:05 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I have the choice to reject anything claiming to be "art" that I personally think is crap. That's my choice.

Government grants (your tax dollars) do go to the National Endowment for the Arts and other "arts programs" from time to time, so in that sense, you don't have a choice what to reject. This may be part of the problem people have with art that is offensive to them; they feel like they are helping pay for it.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-25-2006 06:11 PM

That's okay. Because art classes are being eliminated from most schools. Art colleges in America are also in a state of decline since too many IDIOTS out there think merely owning an application like Adobe Photoshop is enough to make them an artist. And then the ones who really want to attend school see tuition prices spiking while financial aid gets cut -or shifted to people like illegal aliens or felony convicted prisoners!
[Mad]

I own a few electric guitars. Does that make me Eddie Van Halen?

If someone walks into an art supply store and buys a complete oil painting setup, does the act of merely buying the hardware automatically make that person Rembrandt?

Oddly, enough retards out there think merely aquiring a few applications and listing them on a resume is enough to qualify for an art related job.

In the end, America is falling behind Europe in terms of artistic creation capability. We already suck ass compared to them in the graphic design department -thanks largely to that computer software situation.

edit: the underlying point with my gripe about people feeling software alone is enough isn't to mandate that everyone working an art job attend art school (although results would be far better). America has little, if any, standards at all anymore for competence in making art, illustration and graphic design. The rest of the world still has standards. And now they're kicking our asses over it. The overall best graphic design and product design on average is now happening in Northern Europe. Not the United States.

America's ability to create art also ties into our capability to INNOVATE. We diminish our ability to innovate and we'll diminish our economic capability as well. Given how shitty on average our movies are becoming, it is only a matter of time before Europe and Asia start kicking our faces in on the movie front.

But who cares about falling behind Europe? Lets eliminate all art funding and art classes from schools just so we can prevent one out of many thousands of people from making art that looks gay.
[Mad]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.