|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: One mans protest at quality of current films
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 10-05-2006 01:21 AM
Frank, Censorship works on many levels, this movie has already been censored by the government with its R rating, This Guys stance seems fair to me, He obviously does not like to feed his audience non family entertainment, afterall they re-opened with animated childrens entertainment.
How many dollars will he make by providing a consistant approach to the style of film, ie movies for the whole family not just teenages, The simple fact remains that he cannot stop people from watching it, teenages have cars and can travel, in 3 months it will be avaliable from every shop in town, he cannot nor does he imply that people should not see it!!! Its just that he does not endorse it nor does he want to associate it with his Cinema Experience.
Personally I can remember the cinemas as part of the experience of seeing movies as a child. Ie ET at the 2000 seat State Theatre. James Bond at the Drive In ect
As I said in another thread there is much more money in repeat business. It only takes one Wickerman to put people off going to the movies for months if not years?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Dubrois
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 896
From: Cleveland, OH
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 10-05-2006 03:05 PM
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Frank, Censorship works on many levels
Yes it does. Regardless of how passionate people are about his right NOT to show the movie (which is fine by me), I thought they'd at least have the prescense of mind to acknowledge that this IS indeed a form of censorship. Wal-Mart does the same thing. Anyone remember John Stewarts book that they refused to carry? There was an objectionable picture in it, so they refused to carry it.
quote: Stephen Furley
But he didn't try to stop people seeing the film elsewhere
No, thats true, he didn't try to stop people from going elsewhere to see it, but he doesn't have to try to stop people from going elsewhere to be censoring the movie. The definition is pretty clear cut. Don't read anything into it.
quote: Stephen Furley
By your definition, any theatre that does not show every film ever made would be censoring
First of all, it wasn't MY definition, its one of the many definitions this word has. Secondly, theatres don't have the capacity to show EVERY movie made. That was a rediculous statement. Does that also mean he is censoring every other movie available? If so, its worse than we thought! Simple fact is, he chose one particular movie to take a stance with, and to drive his point home, he closed down! Not only did he censor the movie, but he wanted EVERYONE know about it.
I don't disagree that this guy can do whatever he wants to. He owns the theatre and its his business. Censorship is not illegal in this country, but lets not confuse the terminalogy. Look at the definition, then look at the situation. The guy saw a movie he deemed unacceptable for other people. You can't put any "if's" "but's" or "or's" into the definition to change it in order to suit your own feelings or needs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 10-05-2006 05:08 PM
quote:
Simple fact is, he chose one particular movie to take a stance with, and to drive his point home, he closed down!
That is not true. If you read the original article you will see that it involved more than one movie. It helps your arguments when you actually read what is being discussed.
quote: Frank Dubrois
The definition is pretty clear cut. Don't read anything into it.
I agree that the definition you provided is indeed clear cut. The part you are ignoring is where is starts out "a person authorized..." This means they have been put in a position of power to censor. Censoring is done prior to the material being made available. That's how you end up with and "uncensored" version. Someone in a position of authority edits before it is made available, and then maybe they also provide an alternative, uncensored version. This is clearly not the case with Boardman. It is exactly as Cameron stated. He does not endorse it, but he is not censoring it either.
quote: Frank Dubrois
The guy saw a movie he deemed unacceptable for other people.
No, he did not. He deemed it unacceptable for his theatre to play. Boardman did not pass judgment on what others should or should not see; in fact the theatre's hotline provided information on where the movie was playing. Fact is, this is absolutely not censorship.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 10-08-2006 02:33 PM
defamer
Theatre Owner Takes Two Week Vacation From Hollywood Crap
Rather than submit to a force-feeding of mindless he-witch fare or the Jackass Collective's latest foray into experimental reverse-peristalsis- and-blunt-force-genital-trauma cinema, an angry Illinois theater owner decided to issue the studios the ultimate symbolic "fuck you" (or at least the ultimate symbolic "fuck you" available to someone with just two movie screens): shutting down for two weeks to protest the "drivel" Hollywood is currently offering. Reports the LAT:
Lorraine owner Greg Boardman put his two screens on hiatus rather than sell tickets to the gross-out and freakout fare he said Hollywood distributors had made available in recent weeks. Boardman said he'd rather show nothing than such recent offerings as "Beerfest," "The Covenant" or the "Jackass" sequel, which topped the nation's box office last week despite being panned by critics.
"There's just so much lousy material out there -- people vomiting on the screen," said Boardman, 52, who grew up watching movies in the Lorraine and now runs the business from Northern California. "I have one of the finest sound systems in the world, and I don't want to waste it on such drivel."
The article notes that the hiatus is ending today with the release of this year's seventy-fifth offering of talking, computer-generated animals, Open Season, and a screening of Invincible, one of two uplifting football movies currently in multiplex rotation. So either the maverick owner has suddenly lowered his drivel-threshold after two revenue-free weeks, or he's planning a far more spectacular protest: luring Ashton Kutcher and Mark Wahlberg fans into his theater and burning the place to the ground, a bold, fiery statement about the third-rate product Hollywood expects the public to consume week after week.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-08-2006 06:04 PM
quote: Frank Dubrois
Secondly, theatres don't have the capacity to show EVERY movie made.
Of course they don't, so they make the choice to show some, and not to show others. Is that choice censorship of the films they choose not to show? If not, why is it censorship if he chooses not to show any film? What if he had decided not to show 'Jackass', but to show 'To Kill a Mockingbird' instead? What if he had shown a French film instead' or not shown any films, but put on a live concert? What about a theatre that didn't show 'Jackass', but showed some other current mainstream film instead? Are any of these censorship? If not, why is not showing 'Jackass', and deciding not to show anything censorship. He's not trying to stop any other theatre from showing the film, and he's not trying to stop anybody from seeing it. That sounds like a very strange definition of censorship to me.
quote: Frank Dubrois
to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Well, he seems to find the film objectionable, but he's not removing or surpressing it if he's quite happy for other theatres to show it, and for people to see it there. This is quite different to the situation where a group of people every few years decides, that they don't like a film, and try to stop the film being shown.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic