Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: One mans protest at quality of current films

This is topic One mans protest at quality of current films in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004835

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-03-2006, 06:32 AM:

This is from 9 msn here in australia

US theatre shuts down to protest Jackass
Tuesday Oct 3 19:23 AEST
AP - A small-town theatre owner says he was not trying to send Hollywood a message when he shut down for two weeks rather than show box-office leader Jackass 2 or other new releases that he calls "drivel."

But even if accidental, Greg Boardman's blank-screened protest is getting a thumbs up from movie-goers who long for family fare and jeers from others who say his theatres are one of the few diversions - especially for children - in this farming town of about 6,000 people.

Offerings such as Beerfest and the Jackass sequel briefly landed a "Closed" sign on the marquee outside Boardman's Lorraine Theatre.

"The movies are so bad and I don't need the money ... I just didn't think I should use my high-quality facilities to show people vomiting on screen," said Boardman, whose theatres boast a high-tech, eight-channel digital sound system.

Jackass features Johnny Knoxville and his gang performing crazy stunts and antics, often involving self-inflicted pain; Beerfest revolves around fictional siblings who participate in an Olympics-style drinking competition.

The 84-year-old, 500-seat Lorraine in downtown Hoopestown reopened Friday, showing Disney's football biopic Invincible, while an 85-seat sister theatre down the street relit its screen with Sony's animated kids movie Open Season.

Hoopeston native PJ Clingenpeel said the projectors should never have been turned off in the first place. He said the two-week shutdown only hurt children in this town where Boardman's movie houses and a skating rink are about all they have to do outside of school and sports.

"All he did was ruin a lot of kids' weekends. That's why I think he's a crybaby," said Clingenpeel, a 30-year-old welder.

Boardman says he is sorry that darkened screens cut into the town's limited entertainment options. But he says he will shut down again if faced with a similar batch of films, adding that contractual issues with the studios - such as guarantees on first-week receipts - sometimes limit his options.

Boardman grew up near Hoopeston but now runs his theatres from his home near Fresno, California. He says shutting down the theatres was based strictly on his personal standards, not censorship or an effort to shelter people in the small town.

Over the years, his theatres have screened controversial films such as Brokeback Mountain and plenty of action movies, he said. And during the shutdown, the Lorraine's customer hot line told callers they could catch Jackass 2 at theatres in nearby Danville.

"There are enough theatres carrying movies like Jackass that if people want to see them they can ... The problem now is that there are too few good movies, movies that transplant you to another place," Boardman said in a telephone interview.

Yvonne Green, who manages the Lorraine, said the shutdown sent a ripple of anxiety through Hoopeston because Boardman has been trying to sell the theatres and many townspeople thought they were closing for good.

Most were understanding when she explained the shutdown was temporary, said Green, who was paid during the two weeks the theatres were closed. She also said she backs Boardman's decision, based on the movies he had to chose from.

"They're just not good. I just don't know how to say it and not say anything nasty," Green said. "They just weren't appropriate for anyone to see."

Paramount Pictures, which produced the Jackass sequel, did not immediately return a call for comment Friday.

Boardman said the shutdown was not a veiled message to moviemakers and he doubts studios will take notice, despite national media attention that followed the temporary closing.

"I think I'm way too small to make any kind of statement to Hollywood," Boardman said.

©AAP 2006

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 10-03-2006, 07:54 AM:

I saw this story a while ago and wondered if he really had such a poor relationship with his booker. That statement is said by someone though who has not worked for a non-corporate theater.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-03-2006, 07:55 AM:

If he's the owner he can choose what he shows; is there really not a single film that he's prepared to screen? Did he consider showing foreign films, or classic ones, for example. It seems difficult to believe that there really was nothing available that he was prepared to show. If he is trying to sell the theatres, could it be that he is trying to drive bown box office figures, to justify closure, and sale for some other use?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-03-2006, 09:33 AM:

There are certainly other options he could have chosen, such as running a mini-film festival of classic films for a week, or a foreign film, etc. This did nothing but hurt his employees.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-03-2006, 10:15 AM:

And made himself look like a big douchebag as well. Sure JAckass might not be up to his standards, but other people like it and it was the #1 film it's opening weekend. Besides, there's been even worse movies out there the past few years and he hasn't closed for those probably.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-03-2006, 08:20 PM:

I agree with Mitchell and Mike. That owner (assuming he did't pay salaries/wages for the closed period) only hurt his employees and the theatre's clientele that would have liked to have seen the film. Oh, and his selling position for a prospective buyer cuz of lower revenue.

But! Perhaps a savvy buyer would realize the stupidity of the seller and cater to the varied tastes of the patrons and show ALL popular films and make a great profit...and keep his employees employed.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-04-2006, 12:37 AM:

I read that he is/was paying his employees when he closed down. He also claims that what he is doing isnt censorship. I dont know if I agree with that. It sounds like he doesnt personally agree with the material, so he wont let anyone else see it either. He lost money and he probably lost a few customers too. All it takes is a customer to go somewhere else once to see what the competition is like, and you could lose them forever.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-04-2006, 01:31 AM:

Its an interesting way to get a lot of publicity, It probably resonates strong christian and family values ect, Its hard to say what impact it would have on his market, but only he would understand that with all those years of running that cinema.

Also it gives the town a chance to see what it would be like without the screens, afterall you often dont know what you have got until its gone.

A smart thing to do? or idiotic? My opion is that it is probably both!!!!

To aspire to be a family cinema (ie a place that the whole family can go)is a nice idea in the right area, a small town of 6000 people, a large single screen and a small moveover house. That Hollywood should supply/ make more product for this market makes financial sence, as the sell through DVD market for these movies is very strong and profitable in its own right.

As for censorship I dont think so, As a cinema owner I think he is being sensible. I feel that you should pick films that you think the bulk of your market would like, not offend. You cannot be everything to everybody, Adults dont want to be around teenages on a saturday night and vica versa, hence the family market.

Anyway love him or hate him, his actions have make me think outside the square.

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 10-04-2006, 03:00 AM:

I'm not sure who’s side I'm on. While I agree that Jackass does not totally deserve one of my theatres 350 seats, dts equipped thx certified auditoriums and I keep asking my self WHY this is on the movie screen it does get a group of people together to overall enjoy them selves weather it be shocked and disgusted or falling out of the seat laughing. Sure, like this theater owner I would love to have more films I like and can get completely lost in as well as enjoy presenting but I'm not sure what he did is the best message to send to the production companies.

It just seems like the "But mom! I don't wanna!!" Approch. Personally, I'm learning to make good films because I want to see better films.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-04-2006, 03:25 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
As for censorship I dont think so, As a cinema owner I think he is being sensible.

Check on the definition of censorship. It is. As far as being a sensible cinema owner...well...since when does NOT booking the #1 movie in america become sensible? He lost a LOT of money, possibly a few customers...but what did he gain? He made the news and caused a few people to roll their eyes at his conservative views on entertainment. If it were up to this guy, I bet women would still be wearing knee length swimming suits at the beach.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-04-2006, 04:31 PM:

This is not censorship and I'm not sure which definition you are referring to, Frank. This particular gentleman is not restricting anyone from seeing the movie, he is merely making it a little less convenient. The movie, in it's entirety, is still easily accesible. As a business owner you have control over the products you sell. I have no problem with the actions Boardman took. In a way, it's refreshing to see someone choosing to make a statement, however small, rather than chase the easy buck. I agree that he could have showed another picture, but being closed makes a news story, which is obviously his intent.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-04-2006, 05:18 PM:

Why didn't he do this for Wicker Man, RV, or you Me Dupree? Those were all equally as bad if not worse.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-04-2006, 09:33 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Why didn't he do this for Wicker Man, RV, or you Me Dupree?

Those were just bad. Not disgusting.

It's kinda stupid really...he lost a few bucks being closed, and he's certainly not going to make it up with "more" business from his little publicity stunt. The same people will still go to the movies as before. I'd rather be open and entertain the folks. Some people will like any movie no matter how bad it is.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-04-2006, 11:18 PM:

CHAD:

cen·sor - A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

cen‧sor‧ship - the act or practice of censoring.

Sounds like it to me.....He withheld a movie that HE deemed unfit for people to see....OR it was unfit according to his standards, so he did not book it and let anyone else see it and judge for themselves.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-04-2006, 11:27 PM:

Well some think that Wicker Man is disgustingly bad so... [Smile]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 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?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-05-2006, 03:44 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Sounds like it to me.....He withheld a movie that HE deemed unfit for people to see....OR it was unfit according to his standards, so he did not book it and let anyone else see it and judge for themselves.

But he didn't try to stop people seeing the film elsewhere, nor did he try to stop other theatres from showing it. By your definition, any theatre that does not show every film ever made would be censoring. I went to see 'Angel-a' last night; has your theatre shown that film? If not, are you censoring it, or have you just chosen to show some other film instead?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-05-2006, 08:25 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
If it were up to this guy, I bet women would still be wearing knee length swimming suits at the beach.

You cannot know this about this man. You lose your bet. And that's where the rest of your argument loses credibility.

I'm trying to see this in a slightly different light. Imagine that I'm a Ford dealer and that, suddenly, the company decides to produce the Edsel II or the Pinto II. I say, "Oh, no... they're just making more rubbish. I refuse to put this ugly and/or unsafe car on my lot. I won't use my own money to feature this car in the ads I print for my lot. I won't have my sales staff pushing this car on the public."

Am I a great consumer advocate or a closed-minded dictator? Was it wrong to send a message to the manufacturer this way? You decide.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2006, 12:09 PM:

If that Ford dealer had ten or twenty people come in with cash in hand asking for Pinto IIs, you can bet he would be able to order them.

The movie biz is different - in a small town like that guy's in, with a limited number of screens, you have to know your market and be able to guesstimate in advance what you hope people are gonna want to see. He chose not to play a couple of popular movies because of his own personal taste. I would bet all the teenagers in that town think he's an old fuddy-duddy.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-05-2006, 12:17 PM:

This just screams "publicity stunt" to me. The guy obviously wanted to make a point. If he wanted to stay open, he could have booked any of one hundred years' worth of movies. No doubt he could have found something that would have made money. It's not as if Jackass was the only title available to his theatre.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-05-2006, 01:42 PM:

Well... let's try this from another angle.

If you were an exhibitor in '02, you might have heard (or experienced) some of the shenanigans that happened when the first "Jackass" came out. Clickie here.

This FT thread covered the subject of 8 Mile-related incidents.

An owner could take notice of this kind of behavior and quietly find something else to run. If he had a low screen count, it probably wouldn't have been noticed. He could have said "we just don't have enough screens to run everything" and it probably wouldn't have been questioned by anyone.

Sure... he was probably looking for the PR... but I know plenty of "fuddy duddy" owners who would pass on these films in a second, rather than risk what they thought might happen to their theatres, or "family image". One well-publicized riot in an otherwise quiet business could cause a public relations nightmare that could take a very long time to overcome. Passing on the film, even if the threat was largely based on assumption, might have been an easy choice to make for a lot of owners.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-05-2006, 04:29 PM:

What's ironic, is that the guy lives in CA not the town where the theater is located.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 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.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-05-2006, 05:08 PM:

Seeing as how this thread has focused on "Jackasss", perhaps a look back at the original article is in order.

The owner did not specifically target this one film, but included it in the choices he says he was given. He said nothing about the subject matter, only that he considered the quality of the available films to be beneath the standard he's trying to portray with a theatre he's obviously spent a lot of money on.

On that point, he's right. Much of what's out there right now stinks. The movie-going public seems to agree. Anyone look at the grosses lately? He probably wouldn't cover the cost of heating oil if he was open. Once income exceeds outgo, many drive-ins close. Nobody hollers "censorship" if we miss something after we shut down... we're just down more than 2 weeks [Big Grin]

Given how the article sounds, it just looks like "Jackass" was the lucky focus of the media's attention.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-05-2006, 08:38 PM:

I read another version of this article a few days before it was posted and he specifically mentioned the Jackass movie.

Chad, again, you obviously see things in an interesting light. You take a definition and work it into the way you think. This guy actually IS/WAS "a person authorized..." to censor what he shows. He owns the movie theatre! You apparently think that the only people that can censor this movie are the creators or editors. Censorship can go much further down the food chain....all the way to the exhibitor...and likely even further.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 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.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 10-08-2006, 11:05 PM:

Only the government can actually censor something.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 10-08-2006, 11:32 PM:

Might sound naive but it is his Theatre and he can do as he pleases. If he loses out then too bad for him.

The quality of the majority of films have deteriorated and at least his making his feelings known.

Of course if there is a strong audience for something like Jackass 2 then one should screen it to cater to that audience. If not, then showing it wouldn't be worth it.