quote:

---

Dear Superintendant of the theater,

Please do not consent to have the "Da Vinci Code," movie presented at your theatre.

It's a major attack against Christianity, based on a novel by Dan Brown who says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had sexual relations and a child together - and that the figure of St. John in the Da Vinci picture of "the Last supper", is really Mary Magdalene. How preposterous when there are 12 figures, representing the 12 apostles.

If you do present this movie, we will rally the theatre and protest for the good of all society.

The organization that we belong to is, "America Needs Fatima." It is a catholic organization - yet in listening to the Protestant T.V. stations, they also are protesting the novel; and are determined to organize and protest the movie theatre that will present it.

Hopefully none will accept this movie in their theatre.

Thank you.

---

 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 03-10-2006, 11:27 AM:
 
And in true fashion, them making that big of an issue is turning into Free Publicity for the Studio. In the long run, it will drive more folks to see it because there really going to be curious to see what all the outrage is about.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-10-2006, 12:44 PM:
 
I love a PLAN when it comes together. Sounds like...is it....Wm Castle? Louis
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 03-10-2006, 02:19 PM:
 
"The Last Temptation of Christ" revisited. They'll be wanting to know when the DVD will be out so it can shown in the church basement.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-10-2006, 03:00 PM:
 
Pull out the extra leader, it's time to interlock that baby!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-10-2006, 03:09 PM:
 
Lots of good buzz about the picture. Good movies are often based on "what if...?" speculation and storytelling.
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 03-10-2006, 03:18 PM:
 
People that protest movies are stupid! If you don't wanna watch it, then don't! It's as simple as that. They need to get a life and realize it's just a movie. Oh well, the more they protest, the more money that movie will make. Any publicity is good publicity.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2006, 06:18 PM:
 
Normally word of such a brewing protest about a movie would make me a bit angry. I just hope this Da Vinci Code thing doesn't inflame to the level seen back in the last 1980s when The Last Temptation of Christ was released.

Some protestors can really get on your nerves. But I've never seen anything quite as outrageous as what has been perpetrated at a number of military funerals lately. There is a group of hateful, insufferable moron protestors led by Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, KS who crash any military funeral they can find.

If you haven't heard of them, here's their M.O.: they picket funerals of military service people who died in Iraq -and say those soldiers deserved to die because they fought for a nation that promotes homosexuality. They verbally shout taunts at the grieving family and carry cruelly worded picket signs like "Thank God for IEDs" or derogatory anti-gay phrases. It boggles the mind to find anything more illogical than the stunts that group is pulling.

They hate gays, so they insult grieving military families?


Some states are trying to ban the Phelps group from getting anywhere near a military funeral, but many in Phelps' throng are lawyers and are actively fighting any such legislation.

A couple motorcycle enthusiast groups have joined the fray on the side of the families of fallen soliders. They show up and block the protestors and do other things to drown out their taunts (play blaring patriotic music or rev their bike engines).


I think the folks in that Phelps gang are risking their lives. I personally know people in my area who would greet any such protestor with a loaded shotgun if they tried crashing a military funeral in this area. If they keep up their brand of bullshit one of them is going to get shot.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-10-2006, 06:25 PM:
 
I really hate it when some communist super conservative dweeb thinks he has the right to tell me that I cannot see a movie. People like that need to be told to go live in China.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-10-2006, 06:40 PM:
 
And it will probably be the best movie this year...............
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-10-2006, 07:39 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There is a group of hateful, insufferable moron protestors led by Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, KS who crash any military funeral they can find.

---

LOL! I grew up in Topeka and have met Fred. Our teacher invited him to speak at one of our philosophy classes.. The man is truely an attention whore.

Pickets are great for movies. My first theatre that I was a manager in, which was in Topeka, played Showgirls. Friday grosses were horrible. The picketers (not Phelps but others) showed up Saturday morning, along with TV cameras.. Grosses were good on Saturday. Then "bowing to pressure" the company announced it was pulling the film at the end of the weekend. Sunday's shows all sold out...

People don't seem to get the point about creating publicity.

Basically, if you are getting letters this far out, its time to look at adding prints.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2006, 08:15 PM:
 
I don't have a problem with the general right for people to protest. It is agreed protests against a movie will actually improve business (provided the theater company itself books the print instead of refusing it as some did with regard to the NC-17 rated Showgirls).

I remember buying certain rock albums back in the 1980s simply because Tipper Gore held up copies of them in front of a senate subcommittee. Their seal of disapproval worked in ironic fashion, actually improving the sales.

I don't expect protestors of The Da Vinci Code to be very outrageous. They may get a decent amount of press coverage though (and help the movie sell more tickets). The Phelps gang is an example of just low exceedingly low the behavior of some groups can reach.

Frankly, when one considers three teens in Alabama were arrested this week for burning down roughly a dozen churches just as a "joke that got out of hand," I'm surprised Fred Phelps would be pulling such hateful stunts at military funerals. He would definintely give any college arsonist quite the inspiration for targeting Phelps' specific building. He's making a lot of enemies in the military as well. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple stick-of-butter sized pieces of C4 turned up missing...only to wind up being used elsewhere for some other purpose. Hmm.

 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-10-2006, 08:44 PM:
 
Fred Phelps at Wikipedia makes for some interesting reading.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 03-11-2006, 12:21 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

many in Phelps' throng are lawyers and are actively fighting any such legislation

---

It always amazes me how smart people can be so dumb.

As the release date closes in I imagine a lot of us are going to be hearing from some very outraged people who hardly ever patronize our theater anyway saying we'll never see them in again.
It's amazing how many times these people make the judgement that the general public is too stupid to separate a work of fiction and reality.
Sometimes they are but those people are beyond "saving" anyhow. Why does everyone need to be saved? What is this nonsense?

Anyhow, I also agree this will probably one of the best movies of the year earning a high gross.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-11-2006, 03:29 AM:
 
Fred Phelps is insane. He claims to be anti-gay, but is actually anti everything, except his own 'church', which consists mainly of members of his own family.

If you haven't heard him speak, go to www.godhatesfags.com, and listen to one of the sermons; there's one for almost every week for several years. I doubt that you'll want to listen to the full hour or so of it. Even most anti-gay people can't stand Fred.

This is his idea of some nice childrens clothing:



or this:


 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 03-11-2006, 03:47 AM:
 
Anyone who uses children who only know what they see around them is a moral criminal on so many levels.
That's rediculous.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-11-2006, 10:32 AM:
 
I was walking by the Cheri theater in Boston and saw the nuns praying (protesting) on the sidewalk in front of the place. That is the ONLY reason I watched the movie. Only, later, to find out that the whole scene was probably contrived as a publicity stunt.

As others say, this is likely to be no different.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 03-11-2006, 10:49 AM:
 
Speaking completely from a historical viewpoint here, not religious in any nature as such discussion is taboo here.

I have seen several documentaries on the History channel that talked about how Mary Magdalene was actually an apostle. She, and a few others that no one knows about now, was what you would consider to be Gnostic. She taught that "salvation" came from within you and not lying in a heaven or hell. I forget the whole story but basically when the church decided what "Christianity" should be the MEN that decided just happened to leave her out of the canon. They could not have a woman apostle because it would mess up the whole man is superior to woman thing. Plus, they could not scare people into giving them money if this crazy lady was teaching people that they can be happy here on earth. It is also believed by intelligent historians that she was not a prostitute at all and this was a slander by the church to shame her. I have not read the book The DaVinci Code but I'm sure this has something to do with the story.

From what I understand The DaVinci code is loosely based on this book, which I have read. Very boring but interesting.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 03-11-2006, 04:02 PM:
 
Gotta love ancient conspiracy theories...
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-11-2006, 09:57 PM:
 
Unfortunately, some Americans are afraid of free expression that presents confrontational ideas. There's these raving sects that believe everyone would be better off if nobody ever asked "what if..."
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 03-11-2006, 10:02 PM:
 
Wow, Chris! I didn't know you were a religious scholar! Thank you for enlightening us with your wisdom!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2006, 12:28 AM:
 

quote: Steve Scott

---

There's these raving sects that believe everyone would be better off if nobody ever asked "what if..."

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

I find it remarkable that certain subgroups of Christians can portray themselves as a besieged religion when they comprise at least 85% (right?) of the population.

---

One example of why would be art like Piss Christ
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 03-15-2006, 10:37 PM:
 
Wow! So much for the "no religious or political discusssion rule".

I don't agree with the author of the letter even though much of what I have seen presented on the Da Vinci Code I would consider blasphemous. I think everyone should have the freedom to decide for themselves. I also certainly do not agree with the God hates fags thing either. But it seems like whenever we get on these discussions all Christians and conservatives are stereotyped and lumped together because of a few people with wacky ideas. There are extremists in every group. MOST Christians do not share these views. Christ preached love, not hate. In fact, he spent the majority of his time with people who were considered to be outcasts. The people that were looked down upon in society.

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?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-15-2006, 10:43 PM:
 

quote: Matt Fields

---

One example of why would be art like Piss Christ

---

Well, ain't that a piss-poor example! HA! It's called free speech no matter how offensive it may be to certain self-appointed "holier-than-thou" people.

As far as those radical Christian protesters of the real "America Needs Fatima" group of crazies that threaten to boycott and stage a protest to any theatre playing that film... I say send in the lions to guard the theatres!

OBTW: I am a Christian... I just don't like radicals telling ME what to do or see, etc!
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-15-2006, 11:15 PM:
 
In 1988, while checking speakers one afternoon at the drive-in I was working, someone drove onto the lot and said they'd like to talk to me about "not playing The Last Temptation of Christ here." I told him I just worked there, but the owner would be in later and he would be the one to speak with.

The guy then proceeded to explain to me how his group fully planned to picket the drive-in, should we ever play that picture. Being a Christian myself, I stopped what I was doing, walked up to the guy's window and said, "Look, I know where you're coming from, but this is just a little theatre. If you really don't want that movie to play here, take my word for it, don't say ANYTHING. Believe me, that picture won't do any business around here so he'll never play it... UNLESS he knows you don't WANT him to. Then he'll play it just for spite. Really. Don't say anything and it will all go away on its own."

I guess the guy took my advice because I never heard anything else and we never played the picture.
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 03-15-2006, 11:54 PM:
 
I remember when DOGMA was released. We had two local Catholic churches protest under our theatre canopy. They would have their congregations call our theatre office all day and all night threatening, yes, threatening us. Ah yes, true Christians. Anyway, they contacted the local FOX tv affiliate, and the local newspaper, who arrived opening night. For as many Catholic churches in our town, only a handful of demonstrators arrived (24 headcount). What a joke! We had tons of free press, and packed them in. Even offering the protestors a free ticket to see it, or private screening. No takers. Not even 15 minutes after the press had left our theatre, only two protesters remained.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-16-2006, 01:46 AM:
 
Same thing here when Crash (the 1997 Cronenberg film, not this year's Oscar-winner) and Romance (1999 French feminist film with explicit sex scenes) came out. The morals brigade mieowed and hissed like crazy, and we raked in the money for films which otherwise would have played one Friday-Sunday or Monday-Thursday booking on two shows a day and then disappeared without trace. In the case of Romance, tens of people would walk out after the first sex scene, explaining that they'd just wanted to see what all the fuss was about; but that otherwise, the film was as boring as watching paint dry and that they're now off to the bar for a pint, thankyou very much.

On the radio last night there was an item about the travel and theatre booking agent Lastminute.com, which stuck up posters with the slogan 'Like Gary Glitter in a sweet shop, you can have all the kiddie fun you like when you book with...'. Child protection pressure groups promptly took to the media with howls of protest. During an interview with someone from the Advertising Standards Authority on the radio last night, the presenter commented, 'Their stunt's clearly worked, hasn't it? I mean, here we are talking about their company and giving them free airtime.'
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 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).

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

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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?


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.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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 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.

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

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 03-17-2006, 10:35 PM:
 
Huh..? A "Ron Howard" film draws protest and controversy . Gee Whiz, I protest over the fact that they still pay him to direct films and now he has the nerve to do a remake of "East of Eden". Sad.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 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?

---

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

---

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...
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 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.

---

quote: Chris Hipp

---

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

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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!


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.

 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-26-2006, 05:02 AM:
 

quote: Chad Souder

---

...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.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Robert Mapplethorpe can shove a bullwhip up his ass and take photos of it to his heart's delight.

---

Forgive my naivete, but how is it possible to bugger oneself with a bullwhip, while photographing the event at the same time? That would call for quite a feat of manual dexterity, to put it mildly! But I, too, have no particular wish to see the result.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-26-2006, 10:11 AM:
 

quote:

---

Unless I'm missing something, this is a completely different scenario from, for example, Paradise Now; a film which is widely understood to celebrate the actions of Islamic suicide bombers.

---

Paradise Now doesn't celebrate the actions if Islamic suicide bombers. It attempts to show how a Palestinian suicide bomber comes to be a suicide bomber. In fact while it was being filmed, they had protests from the Israelis and the Palestinians, so the filmmaker figured he must be doing something right, if he is pissing everybody off.

The film presents the moral conflict in two young men in Palestine, albeit, not very bright young men. All of the arguments for martyring yourself and for not martyring yourself are presented. It attempts, without being a documentary film, to show how this might happen. The entire film is moral conflict, with the actual act hardly mattering at all. Quite brave of the filmmakers if you ask me.

Of course we in the West, and most places find the act abhorrent and that sets up the tension in the film. We know what they plan to do, we don't like it, and waiting for it is excruciating. Just like a thriller or a mystery. Will they do it, won't they do it? Will they get caught, will they get killed before they get to the target? Will their parents find out? Will the girlfriend talk them out of it? Will they see the light and have a change of conscience? Will it be messy or gory? Stay tuned to this Bat Channel for the answers! !Pow!

Those that think it celebrates the actions of the bombers are a) missing the point, and b) haven't seen the film. After seeing the film, I came away with the impression that it pointed out how usurious the clerics were to convince young men to martyr them selves to feed on their emotional pain. Why in the Vietnam war you saw Buddhist monks immolating themselves as protest. How come you never hear of a Moslem Cleric setting off a bomb? And my apologies to Moslem Clerics, I'm not even sure that the Palestinian rebels portrayed in the film were even Clerics.

Interesting film to watch. Made you think.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-26-2006, 12:41 PM:
 

quote: Ian Price

---

Paradise Now doesn't celebrate the actions if Islamic suicide bombers.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Forgive my naivete, but how is it possible to bugger oneself with a bullwhip, while photographing the event at the same time?

---

quote:

---

Vatican officials relatively quiet about 'The Da Vinci Code'

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Is "The Da Vinci Code" on the Vatican's radar? You wouldn't know it by public pronouncements. Vatican officials have said little or nothing about the book, which has sold more than 40 million copies worldwide, or the upcoming movie, expected to open the Cannes Film Festival in May. The dominant school of thought at the Vatican is that it is always best to ignore a book or film that presents the church unfairly. "You're only feeding the publicity," said one Vatican official. "I don't think the Vatican will say much about this movie when it comes out -- if anything." But not everyone feels that way, and there are signs that the Code phenomenon may be reaching the critical mass necessary to provoke something stronger from the Vatican. Last year, Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, formerly No. 2 at the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, said it was "truly sad and terrible" that "The Da Vinci Code" had become such a popular book among Italian high school students. What left him aghast was that young people were uncritically accepting the novel's premise that the Catholic Church had tried to obliterate the feminine aspect from the Gospel narratives and from the life of the church. "There is nothing more false," Cardinal Bertone said. He pointed to the importance the church gives to Mary and the attention given in the Gospel to Jesus' female disciples, including the women who announced to the male disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

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.

---

This isn't just isolated to the art world either. I sell automation equipment to the welding industry and our business has taken off the last two years because of the lack of trained people. Let me explain.

Almost every company I go to can't find good welders and they are forced to hire people off the street to weld for them. They refer to them as operators and not welders. Other trained people have to set their machines for them and tell them what to do. My aunt just got hired to weld after only a one week training period. She doesn't understand anything about the chemistry or technical aspects of welding. She can lay a bead and that's about it. The companies have figured out that to get the nice looking welds they need they can buy our automation equipment and just have the person stand at the machine and operate it. That way they don't have to teach them all the aspects of welding. They just teach them how to run the machine and it welds for them.

Companies have to compete with foreign competitors for business and they cannot afford to pay the salaries they used to. Also I know that many of the people in my generation are just lazy. I know so many guys that just want to sit around and play video games rather than better themselves. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the trend. What is your take?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-26-2006, 07:37 PM:
 
American laziness is a big problem. Worse, our popular culture looks down on those who want to do well academically. Party, drink beer, do drugs and sleep in instead. You're not cool unless you play along in that game. Those behaviors endure well into adult life. Eat whatever shit you want, smoke 2 packs a day and even keep doing drugs way past the point of it being fashionable to do so.

Just as big a problem is the endless need to satisfy the never satisfied shareholders. It is not enough for a publicly traded company to be profitable, they have to be even more profitable than last quarter. Lots of money is paid to CEOs and board members to deliver those numbers regardless of what it takes to make them. Usually those numbers are carved out of the backs of the workforce. Close down that American factory, hire a bunch of folks in India and get paid a huge amount of money for that "genius" move. I'll start thinking they're on to something when they start sending some of those way overpriced executive jobs to India. The shareholders will really rejoice over the labor costs saved there!

 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-26-2006, 08:57 PM:
 
Don't be so hard on yourself. One of the greatest assets of Americans is their ability to self criticise. I have admired this trait since my introduction to John Steinbeck's work. Please pass these values up the line.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-26-2006, 10:00 PM:
 
Bobby, you better cut all that crap out or you're never going to get anywhere!
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-26-2006, 11:05 PM:
 
Smoking 2 packs, drinking, and partying seemed to work well enough for Dean Martin....
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-27-2006, 01:58 AM:
 
It's annoying when you come across people who can get away with it like that, isn't it? My favourite example of an exception which proves the rule is the 104 year-old father of a friend. He smokes 80 a day (and has done since he was a teenager) and apparently puts away the best part of a bottle of whisky a week, but is still in very good health. Needless to say, he isn't inclined to take the endless stream of nanny state, healthy eating/drinking diktats very seriously!

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

One way is using a time delayed shutter release, what many photographers call the "bulb" function. Another is by using a shutter release cable.

---

Well if he used the former, I can only assume that his camera had a longer shutter timer than the one on my Nikon. 10 seconds is not that long to get into position and, err, 'officiate' with the bullwhip! Anyhow, I can't see myself going out of my way to see the result. Now, if he'd used a soldering iron or a Black & Decker (fitted with a 30mm metal bit, on its highest torque setting and set to hammer action, of course)...

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

American laziness is a big problem. Worse, our popular culture looks down on those who want to do well academically.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

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.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Sadly, there are too many misguided people - especially in European countries with significant Muslim populations, such as Germany, France and Britain - who aren't willing to look for the subtleties you describe and are simply taking a pro-terrorism message away from the film. Its German release was (according to news coverage here) very problematic.

---

quote:

---

Funding for this Web site was provided by the Catholic Communication Campaign, an activity of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that develops media programming, public service announcements, and other resources to promote Gospel values. Donations of Catholic parishioners make possible the work of the CCC. For more information, visit our website at: www.usccb.org/ccc

---

quote:

---

What do you say to a Da Vinci Code Believer?
By Amy Welborn

Just as in any religion, there are different levels of Da Vinci Code faithful:

*Those who believe every assertion made in the novel is true. These people come to my talks clutching copies of The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, one of Brown’s main sources for the novel. They stand in front of reproductions of Leonardo’s Last Supper and solemnly point out the presence of Mary Magdalene.

*Those who are startled by the claims of the novel, suspicious because they’ve never heard them before, but at the same time accepting of the possibility. These folks usually lack any background in history and suspect that there’s no way to know the truth anyway.

*Finally, there are those who really don’t care about the exact content of The Da Vinci Code, but are glad that it subverts Christianity, and so “believe” in the project in general, and heartily approve of it.
So…how to deal with them?

---

quote:

---

So…how to deal with them?

---

quote: Bruce Hansen

---

These supper religious communist flakes do not have the right to tell me what to believe, or what movie (or book) I am allowed to see.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

....many people in this thread are posting with this implication that they have a right to watch this movie and that people are trying to take that right away from them.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

The people opposed to this movie, whether you agree or disagree with them, seem to be protesting in a law-abiding manner, which is also their right.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Now can you explain all that stuff about how going to the movies and eating at a restauraunt are a priviledges? We don't have a right to eat in any restaurant that we want? These are priviledges given by whom? And can whoever gives that priviledge to us, can they take it way? I always thought that's the way it worked under Sadam Insane, but not here.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

He just doesn't want it shown in his neighborhood.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

You have no right to watch a movie any more than you have a right to drive a car or eat in a restaurant. These are privileges. Rights are things guaranteed to us by our government or Creator and I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution or [insert your holy book of choice here] about movies.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

The only point I was trying to make is that some people seem to get very ornery when someone threatens to get in the way of something they want. I think they feel more threatened than anything that someone would dare try such a thing, like they're having flashbacks of their parents denying them a cookie. I don't even think it has much to do with the movie itself, but rather the feeling that I should get anything I want.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

Why is it whenever we discuss a religiously themed film or a religious person objecting to a film they find objectionable it turns into a "let's bash the religious person" thread?

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

Religious people have every right under the constitution we do including the right to express themselves. In this case he is not trying to take away anyone's "rights" because you can see the film in any number of theatres. He just doesn't want it shown in his neighborhood.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

In this case he is not trying to take away anyone's "rights" because you can see the film in any number of theatres

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Oh, contrare. Make no doubt about it -- it's only because this is the only letter we are aware of, but you can bet money on it, that this organization wants this film pulled from every theatre in the country. That would suit America Needs Fatima just fine. Don't believe me? Just ask them.

---

I quite certain that they do, and they are well within their right to being market forces to bear to try to achive thier goal (even though by employing such tactics they are hurting their own cause). As long as it isn't the government seeking to pull a film, personally, I don't have any problems with this.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-12-2006, 06:30 AM:
 
Bringing this post back around to it's original subject matter:

From IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-05-12/)

'Da Vinci Code' Sparks Indian Riots

"Controversial new movie adaptation The Da Vinci Code has prompted religious protests in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay). Hundreds of Catholic stalwarts yesterday gathered outside a convent school in the city in a bid to stop the film's release next week , blasting it as an attack on their faith. Members of the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF) have taken offence to the movie's depiction of Catholic group Opus Dei as corrupt, out-dated and at the centre of a cover-up of the truth about Jesus Christ. Csf general secretary Joseph Dias says, "Activists will go on a fast unto death if the government fails to take action against anti-Christian movies. You can't make fiction on a religious figure. Tempers are already running quite high and there's no way of saying what could happen if the movie is released." In a statement, the group added: "The Da Vinci Code is offensive as it hit certain basic foundations of the religion." The protest is the second in a week by the CSF after Tuesday saw approximately one hundred demonstrators take to the streets outside a Mumbai church and burn copies of the Dan Brown novel."



Riots and book burning. Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-12-2006, 09:39 PM:
 
Many churches have been hosting events and mentioning during services about the "lies of the Da Vinci code". Rather than the traditional increase in business protests usually create, I could see this campaign working to reduce grosses. The business that "The Passion of the Christ" did indicates that church-based campaigns can work to assist, so we will have to see if they can also work to hinder.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-13-2006, 02:25 AM:
 

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

Tuesday saw approximately one hundred demonstrators take to the streets outside a Mumbai church and burn copies of the Dan Brown novel.

---

Congratulations on selling another 100 copies of the book!
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 05-14-2006, 01:01 AM:
 
While chatting to a "Fundie" last week, their plan is to stage a "buycott" which entails going to any movie except Davinci.
 

---

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 05-18-2006, 03:31 AM:
 
Rumor has it that the fundies plan to hold a protest at the theatre I work for. It sounds as if it'll be a traditional protest with signboards and stuff...

I'm looking forward to seeing just how well this movie actually does.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-18-2006, 11:46 AM:
 
From what I understand and heard, there will be protests at the theatres that I work at. Oh well, I say, let them protest all they want and bring on the business. Anyway, we are getting two prints of the movie, one of which will be in our 630 seat auditorium, the other one, in our 300 seat auditorium. Last night, I sold at least 16 advanced tickets to the movie on Friday.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-18-2006, 12:57 PM:
 
The priest at my church is a regular moviegoer. He mentioned the movie from the pulpit last week and did not express an opinion on it, just said that it "looked interesting" and just reminded everyone to remember that it's a work of fiction.

Too bad the protestors can't see it in that sensible light.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-18-2006, 11:32 PM:
 
The funniest thing about the Indian protests is that muslims have joined in the protests. I wonder if it is to bolster their Danish Cartoon protests and act like they are consistent. They kept saying "how dare the movie insults one of our prophets Jesus Christ".

Now, I do know that islam considers Christ to be a prophet, but I find this new found concern just to be an excuse to ban something and act like they are consistent when they happen to use the same excuse to ban something Rushdie writes.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-18-2006, 11:53 PM:
 
Sounds like another invoking of the precept, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-19-2006, 07:39 AM:
 
'Fundies' are a gag gift for couples by the way:

http://www.shopinprivate.com/fununfortwo.html

I have trouble calling a Fundamentalist a Fundie for the above reason.

Anyways, I was notified that some Christian Fundamentalists will be protesting in front of my theatre today. I will be reporting to work in my Satan outfit and taunting them with my pitchfork.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-19-2006, 12:37 PM:
 
My mom and dad are going with a group from our church tonight to a screening, we're Presbyterians. I was kind of surprised our church is doing that with all the negative actions from other Christian and Catholic groups ,but I think they are taking the right way, in that they are buying a block of tickets and probably meeting afterwards for discussion of the movie.
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-19-2006, 01:15 PM:
 
God, (no pun intended) the interlock leader's just been dusted off (not literally, it kept in a hermatically sealed container and dowsed with holy water......)
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 05-19-2006, 09:42 PM:
 
Christian ad about Code gets pulled
Theatre chain drops spot that was to appear before film

Brian Hutchinson National Post Friday, May 19, 2006

VANCOUVER - A movie house commercial that encourages churchgoers to see and discuss Hollywood thriller The Da Vinci Code has been dropped by Canada's largest cinema chain, which said the ad was part of a religious campaign to "stalk" unsuspecting film patrons.

The 10-second spot was produced by evangelical Christians and was to be shown for the next month inside 65 Cineplex cinemas in Ontario and Western Canada.

The ad directs people to a Christian Web site devoted to the controversial film, which opens across North America today.

Cineplex Entertainment LP is promoting the movie heavily; however, on Wednesday, the company abruptly cancelled its $63,000 advertising deal with Campus Crusade for Christ Canada, a B.C.-based affiliate of the world's largest evangelical Christian organization, CCC International.

The decision was announced after a story about the Campus Crusade ad appeared this week in the Toronto Star.

In addition to producing the ad, the Star reported, Campus Crusade had "mobilized a small army of volunteers from Toronto to Vancouver willing to stalk moviegoers in the line outside cinemas" and to press upon them "biblical tracts," debunking contentious claims about Jesus Christ said to be in the movie treatment of The Da Vinci Code.

Cineplex made direct reference to the Star article in an e-mail to Campus Crusade yesterday.

"With the knowledge that this organization plans to 'stalk' our moviegoers outside of our theatres handing out unapproved material concerning a film we are presenting, we cannot lend support to this activity by running this campaign," wrote Cineplex ad saleswoman Diane Rajh.

Campus Crusade's marketing director was flabbergasted when he read the Cineplex e-mail.

"We never planned to stalk anybody," Braden Douglas said yesterday.

"As I told the Toronto Star reporter, rather than throw up walls, we want to encourage people to see the film and to discuss it."

Campus Crusade distributed cards and brochures that promote its Da Vinci Code Web site; the material reached as many as 30,000 individuals and churches across Canada. While the brochures contain a brief gospel message at the bottom, "they are not what most people would consider as biblical tracts," Mr. Douglas noted.

"Ten students in Montreal said they might go out to a few theatres and hand out the material," he added. "A handful of students in Calgary said they might as well. This is not some massive army we have assembled."

Reached at her office in Toronto, Cineplex spokeswoman Pat Marshall said it was not, in fact, her company's view that Campus Crusade planned to harass moviegoers. The e-mail that Cineplex sent to the organization was a "mistake." Ms. Rajh, she added, "is misinformed."

Cineplex's decision to drop the brief spot was made because the company "does not show any religious advertising at all," Ms. Marshall explained, even if it promotes a film the company is showing in its theatres. The contract with Campus Crusade was made in error. "It slipped though the cracks."

But Campus Crusade officials note that their ad made no reference to religion at all; rather, it showed an image of Leonardo's famous painting, the Mona Lisa, and a tag line that read, "Seek the Truth."

The ad then revealed the address to a Web site operated by Campus Crusade, where people can discuss The Da Vinci Code and read Christian perspectives about the film.

That argument did not sway Ms. Marshall. Even if the ad was not overtly religious, "it was made by a religious organization. And we don't accept advertising from any religious group."

Famous Players, a Canadian cinema chain bought out by Cineplex last year, accepted advertising from Campus Crusade when it screened The Passion of the Christ two years ago. The movie went on to become one of the highest-grossing films ever.

bhutchinson@nationalpost.com © National Post 2006
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-20-2006, 12:42 PM:
 
Considering that there was probably a signficant amount of money spent to produce the ads, I am willing to bet that there will be somekind of lawsuit coming.

No protest at my location (being a mall location), however, a couple of church groups bought up some tickets for different shows. Hopefully it will be all for naught, but I am a bit concerned about somekind of demonstration happening in the auditorum durning the middle of a showing. Just a bad feeling I have hopefully I am wrong about this.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-20-2006, 01:47 PM:
 
I went out front today and asked the protesters if they work for the film company. They wondered why and I explained to them that they were bringing in more business to the theatre because of their antics. They were highly upset and said that was not their intention. I said "The best intentions......." and walked away. I think they left. I was having people ask for 'tickets to hell' because the protesters were telling my patrons they were going to hell for watching the movie.

Wow - excitement! I love it!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-20-2006, 02:14 PM:
 
Dennis: Great post!

Y'all think that film is worth protesting over? Yous ain't seen nothing yet! Just you wait when I release my next hardcore porno film currently in production:

"Forbidden Love: Father Mayii and Pedro the Altar Boy".
 

---

Posted by Matthew Stevens (Member # 2167) on 05-24-2006, 03:44 PM:
 
Protests means my theater makes money.

When we had Brokeback Mountain, we had several people outside protesting, it only made more people come see it.

And on the subject of phelphs (you know, god hates fags), I've had him in town several times. He's a lawyer and the majority of his family are lawyers, what he does is piss off enough people until they attack him, then he sues the attackers.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-24-2006, 09:00 PM:
 

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

I went out front today and asked the protesters if they work for the film company. They wondered why and I explained to them that they were bringing in more business to the theatre because of their antics.

---

You know, I have to respectfully disagree that protesting this film will bring/has brought in more business. Hype was generated long before opening day as is the case with every movie that has a successful first weekend. People are not driving by and seeing protestors and saying, "Gee, look at those people with their signs and pamphlets. We should see that movie." This buzz was started months ago by the media and the bajillion people that enjoyed the book. If nobody would have showed up at any theatre anywhere in the nation to hand out literature like they did at my place, this movie would not have done a dime less opening weekend. I could maybe see a case being made for protesting increasing the business of a controversial movie that was not based on a huge best-seller and that did not star one of the hugest actors of our lifetime, but not Da Vinci.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-25-2006, 06:17 AM:
 
Well, I have had what I would call 'less than educated' people approach me never even hearing of "Da Vinci" and saying that the only reason they are seeing the movie was all 'the hype' that they have witnessed in our small town.

I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a religous type saying how disappointed he was in Christians who went out to see the film. He figured that since the film made all the money it did that a large majority of the audience was Christian. Gee - ya think?
 

---