|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Zack and Miri pulled from Utah theatres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-04-2008 11:51 AM
Larry Miller made a simple mistake, or more accurately his spokesperson did -- not by not booking the film -- obviously he did that because the majority of his audience is very conservative and he is booking to his market like any smart business man would do. His mistake was that Carl Gunderson made the statement that the chain was not booking the title because of graphic sex and nudity, Why did he say that? By making that statement, he immediately put it in the "morals" column where it then became legitimate to ask, "then by that measure, do you not think murder, maiming and torture as depicted in SAW V, which you did play, is NOT immoral?" From that point on, it is just so much foder for the reporter so sensationalize the "non-story." My point is, it could easily have been avoided.
I am sure this chain doesn't play EVERY release that comes out of Hollywood, why not just say, "We are not playing it because it is a business decision based on a number of factors, just as we consider when we don't book many other titles that are in current release." End of story.
Then there is my cynical voice which tells me it may very-well have been couched in those "immorality" terms purposely, not just a slip of the tongue because that spokesperson knows very well that probably the majority of his patrons would applaud a decision to "take a stand against smut." Knowing his demographics, may just be that it's has nothing to do with whether or not the chain management thinks the film is moral or immoral, but it knows very well that it's just good business to make that a construct of moral superiority. If you know the majority of your patrons will think of a movie with that title has to be filth, it's a smart business move to paint your business as being against filth. Who can fault that? No doubt he will be looked on as a local hero for his stance against a film that most of his patrons will kneejerkingly assume is sexually perverse. Without ever seeing it, of course.
And just a brief comment (yah, like that is ever gonna happen in my posts) about the violence on broadcast TV in a game where the biggest fan base are 12-35 yr olds; Bobby's obvious outrage is right on the mark -- there is unbridled violence on broadcast NHL games where REAL people, not actors in a movie, are brutalized and there is nary a peep from the public or the FCC. But when there is a "costume malefunction" which reveals a woman's nipple for a fraction of a second, all hell breaks loose -- networks are fined and hence forth everything has to be on delay lest the poor, unsupecting fragile American public be subjected to the immoral sight of a naked breast. A man getting whacked in the back of his head with a hocky stick laying him bleeding on the ice, that's perfectly ok....no morality issue there; no question of how this violence impacts young male minds; no need to time delay NFL games. You can't show a woman's erect nipple, but it's perfectly ok to hack it off with a bandsaw.
We pick and choose which morality to which we want to subscribe and ignore that which costs us too much.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 11-05-2008 07:40 PM
quote: Carl Martin
so exactly what kind of "illicit sex" is going on in this movie? pedophilia? sodomy?
There is sodomy, which is still on the books in many states as illegal.
quote:
Yes I did call him an Idiot, I called him an Idiot for saying "yeah we regret not booking Brokeback because of how big of a hit it was." They realized damn, we missed out on a cash cow there. That right there shows how there moral compass is screwed up. They only stand there ground half the time, if Zack and Miri were to make 400 mil dollars and they missed out on their cut of the pie are they going to say later how they screwed up? Probably!
Brokeback didn't make anywhere close to $400 mil. It only did $83 mil. nationwide, which was probably a nice surprise for those involved, but hardly what a theatre owner would call a cash cow. I'm going to assume the bulk of that $83 mil came from more "liberal" areas of the country and that it likely wouldn't have been well supported in Miller's markets anyway, so I think it is irrational to say the reason he regretted his decision on Brokeback was strictly financial.
For whatever reason, whether you agree or not, there has been a difference in this country established between sex and violence. People think one is worse than the other and that is their opinion. Open your own chain and you can allow your own moral compass decide what gets played on your screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 11-06-2008 12:36 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Sodomy laws are stupid, hypocritically backward and all but impossible to enforce.
That's why the US Supreme Court a few years back outlawed them in all states in *somebody* vs. Texas. That decision, however, only applied to private, non-commercial situations, if I remember correctly. Zack and Miri, obviously, were on a commercial endeavor, which is why it would still be illegal in some states.
Anyway, back to my point with Kurt, no Kevin Smith movie has ever made over $35 mil. He has a very small, albeit dedicated, fan base. Not even the highly-publicized Dogma did over $35 mil. This one doesn't appear to have much more potential. I don't think Miller was risking much financially by keeping this one out of his properties.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[rofl]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Hahahaaa! Scott, that's the best line I've heard in a long time! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic