Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<If this is in regards to showing Hostel, then I agree. And if I was forced between the two. And by forced I mean I have to watch one of the two movies in order to get the antidote to save the world, then I would chose Brokeback. To me there is no redeeming value to a movie like Hostel.>> I would watch whichever one has the shortest running time. =þ
Originally Posted By wonderingalice Yes, DDMAN26, I was referring to that worthless piece of gratuitous violence, "Hostel." peeaanuut, I understand what you're saying and agree to a small degree. However, I'm not afraid to admit that my opinions of the theater owner are definitely influenced by the fact that he's based in Utah. I honestly do not believe his decision was based on potential profits or lack thereof. No knowledge here re: "Dust to Glory," so I can't comment on that.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Yes, DDMAN26, I was referring to that worthless piece of gratuitous violence, "Hostel.">> I've always wondered who's mind is so warped they would think of something like that.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Obviously their not the same, but why can't someone find certain homosexual acts disgusting?" Yeah, but you could use that argument for a lot of stuff. I think mushrooms are disgusting, but I don't care if other people eat them. I also think that it's disgusting to eat bugs, but I'm not going to stop those cultures/people that do. That's the difference. Yes, you can hold whatever opinion you want about a group of people, but it's when you try to oppress them, or keep them from being an equal that it becomes more than just opinion.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I've always wondered who's mind is so warped they would think of something like that." Apparently, it's based on true events. There are actually people in Thailand that will let you pay to kill. If there is an idea that is brought up, you can bet that somewhere it's actually happening, or has happened...
Originally Posted By scottie <There is a big difference between thinking that homosexuality is wrong and saying that they are the devil for being homosexuals and should be banished from the earth. A big difference> Yes, peeaanut. We all have varying degrees of bigotry, ignorance, and stereotypes which influence our assumptions of others. Some have worse consequences. But they are all rooted from the same fears, phobias or inexperience with those that seem so different then ourselves. I wish people could see each other more in our commonalities than our differences, but that is where the problem lies. We'd rather pretend they don't exist or suppress them as long as it is allowed, or just say it's disgusting or wrong, regardless if the reasonings behind these beliefs prove to be true, false or inconclusive. I think that is fundamentally wrong. But we do it all the time.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Hey if a gay couple wants to engage in sex, I say go nuts. It doesn't really matter to me personally, but if it's offensive to someone, that should at least be respected. That person should not be called a prude.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice ^^Well said, scottie. DDMAN26 & gurgitoy2... It's also a scary thought to think that "Hostel" may well become the 'inspiration' for sick copycats.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Mind you the info came from Quentin Tarantino, so...you might want to take that into consideration, but still...
Originally Posted By wonderingalice scottie, the "Well said" was for # 142, but you have a point with 144, too... *L* I recently saw on a Discovery-type channel, a restaurant where people pay big money for sashimi so fresh, the fish is still breathing... They scale and eat the poor thing alive. Might have been in Thailand, I don't recall for sure.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And I'm definitely not against violent films. Passion of the Christ, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and others. But the difference is that there's a rhyme and reason to their violence.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Mind you the info came from Quentin Tarantino, so...you might want to take that into consideration>> See I'm big fan of his films and they're rather violent, but his violence always comes off as rather cartoonish.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Hey if a gay couple wants to engage in sex, I say go nuts. It doesn't really matter to me personally, but if it's offensive to someone, that should at least be respected. That person should not be called a prude." That's fine, however when you start talking about not giving gay people equal rights, or amending the constition, or doing away with descrimination based on sexual preference (ugh...I hate that term), then that's a different story.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice I liked "Pulp Fiction"... And it was definitely 'cartoonish.' I'm not quite sure why he thought it was a good idea to lend his name to this 'tripe'... It's not his film.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I haven't seen Hostel, and won't. Not my cup of tea. I wonder if the point of the thing is that the audience is sitting in judgement of people who would pay to torture other people, yet the audience in teh theater is also paying to watch the whole thing, too. Kind of a performance art/irony kind of aspect? Anyone actually seen it?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder The moment someone bans my Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons I'm going to be very upset. And don't they dare think about banning Rabbit Season, Duck Season.
