Originally Posted By peeaanuut I really wish people would stop using the word banned. He didnt ban anything. He simply chose to not show it. Whether it was based on his personal beliefs, financial reasons or whatever, it was his decision. As a business owner he is under no obligation to show any particular movie.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka The early buzz I heard about this movie was about the sex scenes. I can't recall if they eliminated any sex scenes or not. I haven't seen every single gay themed movie so I really can't say if the sex scene was more graphic than any other movie. Could've been the buzz was just because straight men were acting out a gay sex scene. I didn't pay much attention to what people were saying.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The humanization of the homosexual being "shoved" in our faces. << That's one way to look at it. Another way would be kind of the opposite - rather than being 'humanized' the main characters are ostracized. They are separate and distinct from the world they live in, and they can never be a part of their community. There is no redemption, no way out - instead they're destined to live their lives with dark secrets and furtive meetings. Alienation and loneliness (and violence) are their lot in life, and there's nothing to be done but accept it. But yes - it's the 'marlboro man' cowboy angle, and the attempts by these characters to try and "play it straight" for the outside world that generates the interest. But the ultimate moral? You can't have it both ways - you can't give voice to your true sexuality and also expect any basic respect or even civility from the community.
Originally Posted By scottie <<You can't have it both ways - you can't give voice to your true sexuality and also expect any basic respect or even civility from the community.>> Only us heterosexuals can expect that, huh? It's sad if that's the ultimate moral lesson learned here. I guess I'll have to go see it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But the ultimate moral? You can't have it both ways - you can't give voice to your true sexuality and also expect any basic respect or even civility from the community.> I haven't seen it yet, but I thought that the ultimate moral was that these two characters THOUGHT that was the case, and it was easy for them to think so, given the time and place in question. But the movie was ultimately decrying the whole situation - depicting it as real, but not the way things ought to be. Kind of like the brief spate of movies about "passing" in the early 60's - about blacks who were light enough to "pass" for white; they could gain more respect and civility from the larger society if they "passed" but the ultimate point was that they shouldn't HAVE to. Society should have given them respect and civility to begin with.
Originally Posted By -em Well the film has hit the schedule for my local theatres for Fri so itll be interesting to see what they do if anything- I hope they dont pull it cause I want to see it -em
Originally Posted By ecdc "The movie was “banned†and I’m hysterical?" Yes it was. The "they decided not to show it" excuse doesn't fly. It's his business, and he can not show it all he wants. No one's suggesting otherwise. But having it scheduled to the point that it's too late to pull advertising from the newspaper, then changing your mind last minute, isn't a business decision. It's learning what the topic is and throwing a religious hissy fit. If someone is thrown out of Disneyland and told never to return, we would understandably say they were "banned." If someone went and they'd sold out of tickets, we probably wouldn't. Depending on the when's, why's, and what's, stronger language is appropriate. He *banned* the movie at his theatre, as is his right.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<It's learning what the topic is and throwing a religious hissy fit.>> Why does it have to be religious? Because you dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle, the only reason is because of your religion? What about if you just think its disgusting? Noone mentioned religion till this thread. YOur assuming that he did it for religious reasons.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Why does it have to be religious? Because you dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle, the only reason is because of your religion? What about if you just think its disgusting?<< It's been my observation that derision of gays and lesbians has its root in religious beliefs. I don't believe this guy would yank the movie out of his theatre out of disgust simply for the subject matter, and I'd be willing to bet he's Mormon.
Originally Posted By patrickegan intolerant adj 1: unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion [ant: tolerant] 2: narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: illiberal]
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I trust you were looking in a mirror before you typed that. I respect the relationships and beliefs of others, even if I don't agree, so why can't I be extended the same for my own relationship?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>2: narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: illiberal]<< LOL!!! Um, Patrick, do you know what "illiberal" means? Hint: look up the Latin prefix "il"
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan illiberal, (il-lib-ur-uhl): a nauseous left winger. "Ted Kennedy drank too much last night, and now he's one illiberal."
Originally Posted By patrickegan <<I trust you were looking in a mirror before you typed that. I respect the relationships and beliefs of others, even if I don't agree, so why can't I be extended the same for my own relationship?>> If that were the case you shouldn’t have posted in here. Who does he think he is? What gives him the right to make decisions that effect his future relationship with the theaters customer base? I know what to do, have the government step in and tell the man he has to play the movie. On the subject of Teddy, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, “Splashâ€, are righting a book. Maybe the subject matter will be water safety?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>illiberal, (il-lib-ur-uhl): a nauseous left winger. "Ted Kennedy drank too much last night, and now he's one illiberal."<< ROFLMAO!!!!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>On the subject of Teddy, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, “Splashâ€, are righting a book. Maybe the subject matter will be water safety? << This bad joke brought to you by the Ann Coulter School of Debate.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>If that were the case you shouldn’t have posted in here.<< And how do you figure that? Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. >>Who does he think he is? What gives him the right to make decisions that effect his future relationship with the theaters customer base? I know what to do, have the government step in and tell the man he has to play the movie.<< You're the one who's suggesting that, not any of us. He made a statement by his actions. He can't trust people to make up their own minds about the movie. Then again, I have come to expect that sort of thing from the religious right.
