Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Here's the link: <a href="http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/zackandmiri_blog.html" target="_blank">http://movies.yahoo.com/featur...log.html</a> From the article: "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." Yet another example of the religious community being ok with death and destruction while being wigged out by sex. Oh the horror of it....LOL
Originally Posted By Elderp Sounds like the freedom of the business owner to choose whatever he wants to screen to me. What is interesting to me is if you read the article there are apparently several movie theaters around the country banning this movie, but who do they concentrate on, the "Mormon" owned theater.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Well, the article made mention of newspapers and billboards not wanting to advertise, but I think this was the only mention of theaters refusing to run the film. Same theaters, incidentally, that refused to show Brokeback Mountain. I guess that was just too icky to stand (though turturing and mutilating people is perfectly acceptable to show on screen). C'mon, you have to admit it's a little strange to play the morality card with sex and not with murder and violence. No?
Originally Posted By chickendumpling Honestly? The older my daughter gets the more prudish I get about stuff like this! LOL I bet you didn't know that if Obama becomes president he's going to force kindergartners to watch this movie.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What is interesting to me is if you read the article there are apparently several movie theaters around the country banning this movie, but who do they concentrate on, the "Mormon" owned theater. >>> As has already been pointed out, if you read the article as you suggested, the only theaters that are banning the movie are the "Mormon" owned ones (as you put it) in Salt Lake City. In fact, the same ones that banned Brokeback Mountain, but have no problems showing graphic violence showing heads being chopped off and the like. ElderP, now that two people have pointed out your mis-reading of the article, do you care to comment further?
Originally Posted By mele There are plenty of people (who aren't LDS) who ban these types of movies and seem fine with violent films, too. I know lots of parents who are the same way. I'll never understand it in a million years.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Much of the country is this way - I think it has to do with TV standards, where killing and dissections are an integral part of many (most?) of the tv dramas, yet a quickie flash of Janet Jackson's nipple still resonate to this day. It's a very conflicted sense of morality, since sex and skin and boobs are paraded before us in hundreds of ads and programs - just so the few square inches of "taboo" areas aren't depicted. Even on the show about "Hef's Girls" they can be naked for the entire show - as long the nipples and cracks are blurred out, it's "okay". This is crazy, but you repeat this standard every day over decades and the result is a culture that grows accustomed to this "fine line" of what's acceptable and what isn't. I wish american TV were more open about nudity and sexuality, and more circumspect about gratuitous violence, which has been morphed into what's now called "action".
Originally Posted By dshyates What a wierd society. You can talk about murder, but can't commit it. But you can't talk about sex, but you can commit it. Go figure.
Originally Posted By DAR While I agree there should be some consistency in what can and can't be shown. I still think it should be up to the owner of that theater to decide what can be shown. There's a story going on here about a teacher at local high school who got in trouble for showing his class R rated films. So what was he showing them? Superbad?? The Happening?? No it was for a history class and they've watched Glory, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. Those films are very violent but they serve a purpose as viewing certain historical events.
Originally Posted By dshyates If someone can't tell the difference between Saw V and Schindler's List then there is nothing we can do for them. Let them piss and moan and play it anyway. I think Schindler's List should be required viewing to graduate from HS.
Originally Posted By dshyates But I do agree that this Utah/Movie thing is a non-issue. It is a privately owned theater chain and they can show what they want. They can play nothing but VeggieTales and the Jesus film if they want.
Originally Posted By ecdc Larry Miller is the owner of the Utah Jazz and these theaters. He's of course able to choose what to show in his business. It's no more censorship than if he chose to not show a small indie film because it wouldn't make money. However, it's worth pointing out the hypocrisy. To my knowledge, Miller's theaters have only refused to show two movies: Zack and Mimi and Brokeback Mountain. But I could go see Saw V right now in his theater. He's never prevented a "torture porn" flick from being shown. Sadly, I think this is an accurate microcosm of the Mormon culture here in Utah. We're seeing this paranoia over sex play itself out in an very real way in support of Prop 8. In Utah, sex=morality. McCain is leading here by a large amount. A majority of people still support the war in Iraq, and many consistently defend torture. The other hypocrisy in Miller's choice is that his theaters have screened other films with the same theme as Zack and Mimi. There's more than one teen comedy about the group of high schoolers or college guys who decide to make a porno. But since they didn't have the incendiary title, he didn't care.
Originally Posted By dshyates "In Utah, sex=morality. McCain is leading here by a large amount. A majority of people still support the war in Iraq, and many consistently defend torture." Gotta love Christianity. To paraphrase Anne Coulter "Religiosity is a mental illness".
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< many consistently defend torture. >>> That, of course, is what Jesus would have wanted.
Originally Posted By Mr X Anyone ever wonder why the heck they didn't just change the name of that team when they moved them from NEW ORLEANS, where the moniker "Jazz" actually made sense?
Originally Posted By jdub >>To my knowledge, Miller's theaters have only refused to show two movies: Zack and Mimi and Brokeback Mountain. << LOL, so the theater showed "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "Knocked Up," two "Harold and Kumar" films, "Sex Drive," and of course the movies too repugnant even for me: Saws I-V... INTERESTING. AND--is this really about choices of a business owner, or pressure/anticipated pressure from the majority community? Guess that part's neither here nor there, but perhaps I should rethink my ambitious business plan for a SLC-region chain of "JDUB'S Drive-Thru Cafe & Liquor Shack"
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It isn't just in Utah. I noticed that the TV ads a week or so ago called the film "Zack and Mimi Make a Porno" but now the movie is billed in the ads as simply "Zack and Mimi." Here's why: >>Porno. Anyone offended by that word? Doesn't seem like it. So why are "15 newspapers and several TV stations and cable channels" refusing to run advertisements that contain the full title Zack and Miri Make a Porno? The Associated Press (via Hollywood Elsewhere) reports on a rather odd story about even more troubles that Kevin Smith's latest film has run into recently. Various media outlets have refused to run ads with the word "porno" in them because, well, I don't even really know why? Is there even a logical answer to that question? Philadelphia's deputy mayor for transportation quips, "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."<< <a href="http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/16/zack-and-miri-in-trouble-again-for-the-word-porno/" target="_blank">http://www.firstshowing.net/20...d-porno/</a>
