Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Zack and Miri pulled from Utah theatres

This is topic Zack and Miri pulled from Utah theatres in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002120

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-31-2008, 08:21 AM:

Zack and Miri get the can in Utah

quote:
If you're looking forward to seeing Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks in director Kevin Smith's new R-rated comedy "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" this weekend and you live in Salt Lake City, you might be out of luck. Utah Jazz and Megaplex Theaters owner Larry Miller has refused to book the film. The chain's spokesman Cal Gunderson expressed concerns about the film with The New York Post, citing the film's "graphic nudity and graphic sex" and that it was "too close to an NC-17."
The company's standards seem a little odd considering that the chain had no problems screening ultra-violent fare like "Saw V," which features beheadings and explicit self-mutilation. When asked why Megaplex Theaters did not object to the gory horror sequel, Gunderson had no comment.
Furthermore, the company's decision might make sense if "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" were in fact pornographic. Instead, Kevin Smith's surprisingly tame and sentimental movie has a few flashes of nudity, a handful of love scenes played mostly for laughs, and a whole lot of foul language. In fact, the film's raunchiness level is comparable to that of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", "Knocked Up" and "Sex Drive," all of which screened at Megaplex theaters.
It has been a difficult road for Kevin Smith's film, but it is not the first time he has encountered resistance to his frank and bawdy sense of humor. His first film "Clerks" was originally rated NC-17 for language, and his religious comedy "Dogma" sparked protests from Catholic groups. For "Zack and Miri," he again was forced to appeal an NC-17 rating with the MPAA, a teaser trailer had to be removed from his website, and the battle over the poster resulted in a design where the stars only appear as stick figures.
So what's the problem with this movie? The word "Porno" in the title. Aside from Larry Miller's theater chain, fifteen newspapers along with several TV stations and billboard owners have been refusing to promote the flick across the country because of that word. As Philadelphia deputy mayor Rina Cutler said in a phone interview with The Wall Street Journal, "If they want to call the movie 'Zack and Miri,' that's fine, but Zack and Miri cannot make a porno on my bus shelters."
This isn't the first time Miller's company caused controversy by banning a movie. In early 2006, Miller pulled Oscar-nominated movie "Brokeback Mountain" from the screens when he learned that the film was a gay love story between two cowboys. He later stated that he regretted that decision.
As a footnote to this story, this past weekend an audience full of children and pre-teens expecting to see the G-rated "High School Musical 3" at one of Miller's theaters in South Jordan, UT were surprised when the beginning of the R-rated "Sex Drive," which features nudity and swearing, was shown accidentally. But at least they didn't see Seth Rogen in his underwear.
"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" opens everywhere (almost) on Friday.

I personally like how this idiot says that he later regretted not playing "Brokeback Mountain". He only said this because of how huge of a hit it was. These are the type of people I would love to shoot, but then again thats just me.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-31-2008, 09:08 AM:

Has he even watched the film?

Also, the article confuses the "banning" of the film (which is not happening) with the fact that the theatre owner simply chose not to book it (which is what happened). He probably didn't choose to book "Birth of a Nation" this week, either, but that doesn't mean that it has been banned.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-31-2008, 09:20 AM:

quote:
Has anyone even watched the film?

Obviously Kurt has [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-31-2008, 09:27 AM:

I saw a lot of this movie last night and it should be pulled for being boring rather than any nudity or sex... which really isn't that graphic. There is a bit of full frontal, but I wouldn't say it is excessive or anything. There are a bunch of shots of fake boobies, but fake/augmented boobies are wholly un-erotic.

It is not surprising that Utah has banned this. They are Utah, after all... a completely worthless state. Things like porn are scary to the primitive people who live there.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-31-2008, 09:28 AM:

Well the first thing they do is state that they are not booking it. He really is banning the film from his theatres by not booking it.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-31-2008, 09:46 AM:

Maybe the title is too long for the marquee.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-31-2008, 09:58 AM:

Years ago; the preachers wanted "Best Little Whorehouse" banned based on the word that is up on the marquee. WHORE and PORNO both have 5 letters!

Perhaps that is the connection!! Louis

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-31-2008, 10:01 AM:

Slow news day or what?

quote: Joe Redifer
It is not surprising that Utah has banned this. They are Utah, after all... a completely worthless state. Things like porn are scary to the primitive people who live there.

I don't even know where to begin. [Roll Eyes]

For those who live in the areas served by Larry H. Miller's theatres, here's a quick list of places where you can see this movie today.

AMC Loews Layton Hills 9
Cinemark Tinseltown, Layton
5 Star Cinemas, Magna
Broadway Center Theatre, Salt Lake City
Carmike 12, West Jordan
Century 16, Salt Lake City
Century 16, Sandy Union Heights
Cinemark 24, West Jordan
Redstone 8 Cinemas, Park City
Carmike Wynnsong 12, Provo
Cinemark 12, American Fork
Cinemark 16, Provo
Cinemark Tinseltown 14, Ogden

So, for all those poeple who want to see an ugly guy and a dumb girl "make a porno," buen provecho.

[sleep]

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 10-31-2008, 10:19 AM:

If I did bookings, I would get this movie just for the grand potential for marquees when it goes to a split screen after the second week. Reminds me of when we split The Strangers and Sex and the City at my old theater...

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-31-2008, 02:33 PM:

I agree, Scott. Nothing is being banned.

When did people gain the right to see a movie at the theatre down the street again? I thought private businesses could still decide what products they wanted to offer. I guess I should want to shoot the bar owner near my house since he doesn't have High Life on tap.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-31-2008, 11:06 PM:

Its not being banned in Utah, but it is being banned in Larry Millers theatres. Of course the guy/girl who wrote the article is going to make it sound like its being banned in all of Utah. Story sells better when you say Utah then "In Megaplex theatres"

quote: Greg Anderson
So, for all those poeple who want to see an ugly guy and a dumb girl "make a porno," buen provecho.

Where to begin?! [Razz]

This is a romantic comedy, there is nothing wrong with this movie at all. I would say that there are scenes in Striptease that are almost as bad as some of the scenes in this. Greg if you don't want to see it then by all means you do not have to check it out [puke]

Last time I checked seeing a naked woman didn't turn Bundy into a killer!

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-31-2008, 11:55 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
So, for all those poeple who want to see an ugly guy and a dumb girl "make a porno," buen provecho.

Actually, Elizabeth Banks is quite smart. She graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-01-2008, 12:07 AM:

Heh heh... "cum" laude... She was born for this movie. Actually, she is damn fine for a 40 year old.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 11-01-2008, 02:21 AM:

I think your slightly off there...

She is fine for a 34-year-old!

Maybe you mean't the 40-Year-Old Virgin...I'm gonna put my bike in it!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-01-2008, 02:27 AM:

I swear the article I read in the newspaper said she was 40 (or at least 39). Oh well, that's what I get for being completely illiterate!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-01-2008, 10:59 AM:

I honestly didn't know that Elizabeth Banks was so smart. I also must have forgotten that the movie we're discussing is called Zack and Elizabeth Make a Porno. [Wink]

I also must have forgotten the part where I or anyone at the Megaplex theatres said anything about Ted Bundy's connection to this movie. [Confused]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 11-01-2008, 03:42 PM:

Why is it that whenever a theatre owner chooses to take a stand for his morals and not book a film there are those on this site who feel it necessary to insult that owner? While illicit sex, nudity and profanity may be the norm in the exhibition field and the personal lives of many in that field it is not the norm for the majority in our society and one should not allow constant exposure to it (and those who enjoy it) to color their thinking. A theatre owner has a right to play or not play anything he/she wants and that does not make him/her a sub-normal human being.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-01-2008, 05:15 PM:

I looked over the thread very carefully. Nowhere does anybody insult Larry Miller.

The part I find funny is that this chain had no problem playing Saw V but can't play a silly little romantic comedy because of the title?!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2008, 05:20 PM:

Kurt did call Larry Miller an "idiot" in his first post. I think that qualifies as an insult.

quote: Robert E. Allen
Why is it that whenever a theatre owner chooses to take a stand for his morals and not book a film there are those on this site who feel it necessary to insult that owner?

I'll agree insults go to far. And I'll also agree theater operators should be able to book the movies they want and refuse to book others they do not want to show.

However, if the theater operator wants to make public statements that he is banning a certain movie on moral grounds he is going to get hit with criticism if his moral standards are not consistent. Banning one movie for sexual content and then showing gory "survival horror" movies is not consistent at all. I call that fake, salad bar style morality.

quote: Robert E. Allen
While illicit sex, nudity and profanity may be the norm in the exhibition field and the personal lives of many in that field it is not the norm for the majority in our society and one should not allow constant exposure to it (and those who enjoy it) to color their thinking.

Projectionists are sluts?

The vast majority of American adults have had sex, seen their significant other naked during the act and probably talked dirty too. It's a pretty common thing in everyday life -especially among married people. Movies often cover that kind of subject matter since it is a part of everyday life.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone personally who has committed an act or murder. I don't know anyone who has carried out acts of aggravated assault on other people. Movies show that kind of stuff all the time.

What is more immoral? Having sex with another person? Or bashing in that other person's face -or even killing that other person? So many Americans take pleasure in watching violence and seem to think it's perfectly harmless even though violence is a lot more destructive.

Here's an example of something I found very offensive: Todd Bertuzzi breaking Steve Moore's neck during an NHL hockey game. Bertuzzi skated up behind Steve Moore, punched him in the back of the head and drove him head first onto the ice -all on live TV. Bertuzzi was suspended from the NHL a full season for that. However, he was never arrested even though he should have been locked away in prison for a few years on a felony assault and battery conviction. Todd Bertuzzi is lucky he didn't kill or permanently paralyze Steve Moore. Instead Moore simply had his NHL career brought to an abrupt end. Bertuzzi went back to playing in the NHL a year later. That's a real great message to send to young hockey fans watching the game on TV.

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 11-01-2008, 06:44 PM:

Y'all don't be so quick to pile on a theater owner who won't show a title because of moral objections. It's not all the equivalent of censorship.

True, I wouldn't like to see the "now playing" menu reduced to Disney titles, but don't many of us think at least half the releases out there at any given time are mind-numbing embarrassments that never ought to have been filmed?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-01-2008, 07:20 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Todd Bertuzzi breaking Steve Moore's neck during an NHL hockey game.

(..an off-topic question here: Why does hockey HAVE to be a sport with violent moments with horrendous results where the refs do nothing about it, whereas almost all of the other sports that have violent moments, can be quickly contained by the officals? Even boxing-all forms - is a contact sport that is heavilly organized and regulated.)

Called "mixed-morals" and a "pick and choose" atmosphere.

Really ... to be fair with the members of the UTAH society and gone along with the huge movie going entertainment world down in SLC, LHM should have played "Z and M" and let it be done. It would have trashed out and faded quickly anywhos.

But someone in the organization below LHM that is in charge of this decision had to make a point and make it stick, thus being a big target to throw darts at from almost every one else in that Wasatch Valley...and this is what prob happened when DesNews got a hold of this - to throw darts as what the media loves to do.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2008, 07:42 PM:

I think the theater could have gone about things differently in how it refused to book the Zach and Miri movie. A broad "no comment" policy to the press would have been a good start.

When the theater's spokesman publicly states that it's being refused on moral grounds it's very easy to discredit the man's statement with examples of double-standards where the theater fails to live up to that moral high ground.

Carmike Cinemas has a pretty simple, consistent policy. They don't book movies with NC-17 ratings. The movie could be rated NC-17 for very frank sexual content or for graphic violence. The Zach and Miri movie is R-rated, not NC-17. The MPAA is usually much more likely to hand out a NC-17 rating for a movie with lots of sexual content than it is for a movie with extreme levels of violence.

To be honest, I can't think of an R-rated movie that has been refused bookings by theaters because of violent imagery in it. A lot more movies have been refused by theaters for sexual content.

This isn't to say I'm in favor of making movie theaters show all sorts of sexually suggestive movies if they don't want to do so. I'm just saying if a theater is going to characterize itself as one that doesn't show immoral movies the theater operator needs to be consistent about it. And that means refusing a bunch of the blood-thirsty violence-charged movies as well as the ones with illicit sex. That will certainly cost the theater a good amount of money in lower attendance, but it will be living up to a more consistent standard.

quote:
Why does hockey HAVE to be a sport with violent moments with horrendous results where the refs do nothing about it, whereas almost all of the other sports that have violent moments, can be quickly contained by the officials?

The ONLY time I've ever seen a hockey game properly treated due to fighting was at an Oklahoma City Blazers NHL minor league match. A series of fights erupted after one of the opposing players accidentally took the business end of a hockey stick to his face. Deputies of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Dept. intervened and arrested several of the players on both teams. THAT is what should happen at ANY professional sports game where fights break out. Even if it happens in the freaking World Series or Super Bowl.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-01-2008, 10:26 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
However, if the theater operator wants to make public statements that he is banning a certain movie on moral grounds he is going to get hit with criticism if his moral standards are not consistent. Banning one movie for sexual content and then showing gory "survival horror" movies is not consistent at all. I call that fake, salad bar style morality.

I agree completely with Bobby's take on this. I make these choices every week. Usually, it's because I don't have enough screens to open them all. Sometimes, it's because my booker thinks a film will be a stinker (she's usually right). Sometimes, it's because I think a film will be a stinker (I'm usually wrong).

It would probably be inaccurate for me to say I've never declined a booking because it seemed too gross, or graphic, or stupid, or whatever. I didn't book the "Jackass" pictures. I wish I had declined "Pluto Nash".

On the other hand, I wonder if Miller might have specifically used this to get some attention. Is that smart?.

These are every-day booking decisions that don't need explanation, rationalization or a press release. Just quietly choose what you think will be best for your business, and possibly your conscience, and leave it at that.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 11-01-2008, 10:34 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
I also must have forgotten the part where I or anyone at the Megaplex theatres said anything about Ted Bundy's connection to this movie.

All I'm saying is I think that Saw V. or Hostel is more detrimental to society then Zack and Miri make a Porno. Bundy has nothing to do with this movie, the point I was trying to make is that those movies are more likely to cause people to do horrible things then seeing a naked woman and a guys penis. Not you Greg.

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!

Obviously LHM is a smart man, hes made millions and owns a NBA team, his team and him though have a skewed moral compass IMHO.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-01-2008, 11:06 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
On the other hand, I wonder if Miller might have specifically used this to get some attention. Is that smart?.

Don't think he'd stoop that low to do something like this. He's got too much going for him to degrade himself to do such a scheme, for if he did, he'd lose so much fan base and into his businesses.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-01-2008, 11:43 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Don't think he'd stoop that low to do something like this. He's got too much going for him to degrade himself to do such a scheme, for if he did, he'd lose so much fan base and into his businesses.

On the other hand, consider where his theaters are located. Utah. And I doubt I'm being stereotypical by saying that Utah has a lot of Mormons, who usually tend to be morally conservative. So while you'd say he'd lose fan base, in his area it could easily increase since a lot of people there could easily say "I dislike that kind of material and want to support businesses that stand against it."

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-01-2008, 11:48 PM:

Miller was not using anything to get attention. Neither Megaplex Theatres nor Larry Miller started this story...The Weinstein Company did.

They saw an opportunity to get some cheap publicity out of creating a controversy. They were capitalizing on the mistakes Megaplex made in backing out of their original booking of Brokeback Mountain. Cal Gunderson was just dumb enough to comment when asked by the Post. The Post then wrote the story in a way that made it look like Megaplex had approached them. The story itself is a completely ridiculous piece of garbage.

Move on...nothing to see here...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-01-2008, 11:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Kurt did call Larry Miller an "idiot" in his first post. I think that qualifies as an insult.

You're right. I thought the first post was just the story. My bad.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-02-2008, 01:14 AM:

Back to the "Salad Bar Morality" thing...
I forget which Saw it was I observed this scene in...the 3rd one? I recall a woman was naked in a frozen locker-kind-of-room and was getting sprayed with water...
Did this particular chain book this particular Saw movie when it came out?
Did they book Hostel 2 with the nude girl upside down?
I have a hunch they did. My chain booked these, too...

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-02-2008, 01:18 PM:

Does anyone else find it weird that people are freaking out about a movie with the word "porno" in the title, but have absolutely no problem with titles like RIGHTEOUS KILL and PUNISHER: WAR ZONE?

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 11-02-2008, 03:27 PM:

Like I said earlier, our Country really has a problem with anything involving Sex, but murder and death is alright!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-02-2008, 05:23 PM:

For those that don't read the news Larry Miller is actually quite ill... having literally been brought back from dead in the hospital just a couple of months ago. His diabetes is really bad and he get hyperbaric treatments every day to help keep the blood flowing at the extremities of his body... so for christ sake give the guy a break. Had Larry been in a position to preview the film he may have decided to run it... he did admmit later that not running "Brokeback" was a big mistake that he regretted. This time however there is a good reason that he probably was not able to preview the film.

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-03-2008, 02:48 AM:

Mark,

But as others have mentioned... why does he regret it? Surely, it couldn't have something to do with the fact that he missed out on big $$ since it was a morality decision[/sarcasm].

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-03-2008, 04:31 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
He probably didn't choose to book "Birth of a Nation" this week, either, but that doesn't mean that it has been banned.

Hahahaaa! Scott, that's the best line I've heard in a long time! [Big Grin]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-04-2008, 01:01 AM:

so exactly what kind of "illicit sex" is going on in this movie? pedophilia? sodomy?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-2008, 01:48 AM:

"She frosted me like I was a cake!"

That's all I'll say.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-04-2008, 02:07 AM:

quote:
"She frosted me like I was a cake!"

Sounds like when the girl loves the guy, gets engaged to him, but the guy was being an ass all this time and suddenly dumps her - breaks off the engagement - for another "fish on the line" whom he really wanted (which flopped like a bottom feeder sucker big time) and comes out empty handed.

Then, she finds another guy to love, gets engaged and invites him to the wedding...and the stupid duck goes to the wedding to be humiliated.

(I know that this is different content than what is in the picture, but a girl can "frost" a guy pretty good when she wants to..)

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-04-2008, 03:51 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
everything has to be on delay

This is off topic, but I wonder why people get so fired up over a 7-second delay. What the HELL difference does it make anyway!? If it was a one-hour delay then I could see the outrage.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2008, 08:03 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
There is sodomy, which is still on the books in many states as illegal.

The joke goes: 90% of Americans who have had sex have tried out oral sex. The other 10% are liars.

Sodomy laws are stupid, hypocritically backward and all but impossible to enforce. The state has absolutely NO business in anyone's bedroom. Period.

Anyone who thinks sodomy laws should stay in effect should be banned from watching movies and TV shows with anything worse than a G-rating. And that especially goes for anything with way cool violence. Like it or not, violence is a form of pornography too -at least if we're going to be looking at things in terms of absolutes the way we look at and abhor sexuality.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 11-06-2008, 03:42 AM:

I never said Brokeback made $400 mil, I was just saying that if Zack and Miri were to make a crap load are they going to back track again? Like I've said before, they have every right to book what they want. But to say SAW and Sex Drive is ok, but oh no a movie with Porno in the title "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!"

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 11-06-2008, 07:12 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
This is off topic, but I wonder why people get so fired up over a 7-second delay. What the HELL difference does it make anyway!? If it was a one-hour delay then I could see the outrage.

The difference to me is just that it adds to the not really live factor of a sports game. Basically you are cheering for something that already happened. Even without the 7 second delay there are still a few seconds of processing and transmisson delay.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 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.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 11-06-2008, 03:15 PM:

That would be Lawrence v. Texas. [sex]

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-08-2008, 04:59 AM:

quote:

quote: Chad Souder
There is sodomy, which is still on the books in many states as illegal.
The joke goes: 90% of Americans who have had sex have tried out oral sex. The other 10% are liars.

What does oral sex have to do with sodomy?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2008, 08:23 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
But as others have mentioned... why does he regret it? Surely, it couldn't have something to do with the fact that he missed out on big $$ since it was a morality decision

More likely that he has since seen the film and didn't find it offensive. Money is certainly NOT a factor with Larry. If you had his net worth which is in the Billions it wouldn't matter to you either. It was more than likely having the word "Porno" in the title that stopped them from playing the film. At Jordon Commons which has been either the first or second highest grossing Disney location in the USA and considering the ultra conservative folks that go there mainly with their kids.... Its easy to see why they didn't want the word "Porno" on their Marquee for all the little kids to enquire about... Had it been another title without the word in it they'd have played it! They are playing "Saw" which is not exactly light hearted fare...

Mark

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-08-2008, 09:18 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Its easy to see why they didn't want the word "Porno" on their Marquee for all the little kids to enquire about... Had it been another title without the word in it they'd have played it!

So put it up as "Zack and Miri". Concerned about marketing materials? Tape over the word and/or replace it with "Video". Next excuse?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2008, 09:37 AM:

...and the film company is taking exactly that tack. The most recent ads for the film just show the title as "Zack and Miri."

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2008, 04:28 AM:

quote: Anslem Rayburn
What does oral sex have to do with sodomy?

Sodomy can include oral sex.

According to the dictionary it means
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-09-2008, 11:26 AM:

Well, you learn something new every day!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-17-2008, 12:05 AM:

Zack And Miri Make A Really, Really Naughty Movie has been slapped with an 'R' certificate here meaning no-one under 18 years of age can see it*.

If it wasn't going to do badly enough before, this should see it into an early grave.

*Until they can rent it from the DVD store.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-17-2008, 12:40 AM:

On his weekly podcast, Smith was talking about how in Pennsylvania, they did not allow the billboards because the stick figure drawing would gain the attention of children, who would then inquire as to the meaning of the word "porno." So Smith suggested that they use "Zack and Miri" as the title (without "porno") on those billboards, and they were still denied permission. Where's the sense in that?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-17-2008, 08:54 AM:

When it comes to people's attitudes toward sex, Mike, none of it makes any sense.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 11-17-2008, 12:16 PM:

In SC all the commercials called it "Zack & Miri." While I felt it was fine, honestly, I think it got away with a lot with an R. I remember in high school someone fast forwarding to all the nude scenes in Showgirls and I really don't see anything much different from that NC-17 flick to this. Times are changing I guess.