quote: SALT LAKE CITY - A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." The film, an R-rated Western gay romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead it was pulled from the schedule.
A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience."
Cal Gunderson, manager of the Jordan Commons Megaplex, declined to comment.
The film, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is about two cowboys who discover feelings for one another. The two eventually marry women but rekindle their relationship over the years.
The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.
"I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said.
Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, called it disappointing.
"It's just a shame that such a beautiful and award-winning film with so much buzz about it is not being made available to a broad Utah audience because of personal bias," he said.
posted
Although, hey. Mike Thompson, that's not the only theater in Utah -- a lot of other places are showing it. The movie *is* available to the audience.
And, hey. Gayle Ruzicka, you freaking maniac, you're a maniac.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: SANDY, Utah, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A suburban Salt Lake City cinema owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller has canceled its opening of Ang Lee's critically hailed "Brokeback Mountain."
Director Ang Lee's R-rated gay western was supposed to open Friday at Jordan Commons in Sandy, Utah, but would-be moviegoers were greeted with a sign at the ticket window saying: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience," the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
Neither theater management nor Miller returned calls from the newspaper.
"Brokeback's" distributor, Focus Features, issued a statement blasting the "deplorable business practices of this one theater."
"Given the gigantic grosses already being posted in Salt Lake City for 'Brokeback Mountain,' this is their loss," the statement said.
The Utah Film Critics Society has named "Brokeback Mountain" the year's best movie, named Lee best director.
The movie has seven Golden Globe nominations is considered a front-runner for the upcoming Academy Awards.
posted
Way to show some backbone! Keep bad movies out of the Theaters! If they'd only done the same for Catwoman....
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep forgetting that you people don't actually know me. If you did, TL, you'd realize that asking what you just asked isn't as rhetorical as it was meant to be. If you were talking Good Night and Good Luck, which lasted about a week in Augusta without me getting a chance to see it, then I would be more than a little bit enraged, but a sappy new drama that replaces what could have been an attractive young cowgirl with a dude....I have very little respect for that.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Given the gigantic grosses already being posted in Salt Lake City for 'Brokeback Mountain,' this is their loss," the statement said.
That's really all it comes down to. So the theatre exec pulled a movie he had a problem with...oh well. He gets to deal with the loss of revenue and whatever fines might be implied with violating his licensing agreement with the studio.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:but a sappy new drama that replaces what could have been an attractive young cowgirl with a dude....I have very little respect for that.
O_o Good Night and Good Luck doesn't have any young actresses for you to ogle at, so why didn't you lose respect for it, too? And I'm confused about your use of "replaces" since the story was always about gay cowboys.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think his point was that this is just a typically romance, but with the girl replaced by a guy. I don't have any idea if that's an accurate statement, but that's how I read it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think this movie is posting gigantic grosses anywhere? I mean gigantic is all a relative term, but I think it has only grossed about $15 million? I wonder what movie they replaced it with?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think his point was that this is just a typically romance, but with the girl replaced by a guy. I don't have any idea if that's an accurate statement, but that's how I read it.
If that's his "point", it only underscores his ignorance. There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are tons of movies out there that I find heaps more offensive than this one. But I suppose that theatre owners have the right to show whatever movies they want to in their theatres. And I guess that is why they show so many offensive ones.
That's why James Bond movies get so much screen time.
James Bond movies are way more offensive to me that Brokeback Mountain is.
My rule of censorship for movies is very personal -- if I don't approve, I don't see it. But this isn't censorship. This is a movie house owner deciding what goes on his screens. You may disagree with his choices, reasons, or philosophy, but I can't see how you can disagree with his right to make those choices.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh, everyone is entitled to there opinion, even if some of you dont like it.
If he doesnt agree with a Gay film then he doesnt agree, its not your place to comment on it.
Cant say i'm too thrilled myself; while i have nothing against gay people it isnt natural to not like the oposit sex. If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
As i said i ahve nothing against it; doesnt mean its what nature intended.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
And if every man and every woman became a doctor, we'd have no one growing food and we'd all starve to death. So obviously being a doctor is a bad thing.
Edit: and its not a "Gay film" (and why capitalize the word "gay"?). Its a film about two gay characters.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Wheee!!! Good thing this debate started with a movie theatre. Makes it all that much easier for me to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. So far, guys, the opening credits look promising.
posted
I have no problem with what the theater did.
But I really cannot believe they're still giving Ruzicka a pulpit. Please, it's not that hard to refrain from sticking a microphone in her beak. If we ignore her, I'm sure she'll go away.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As i said, i have nothing against gay people; but i dont see it as a good thing either, it just Is.
I have plenty of gay friends, but i'm entitled to my opinion that while i accept it it isnt natural.
To be gay rather than bisexual is to Only like your own gender; which means the person will never have children and therefor their genes wont carry on. In nature creatures may have sex with their own gender, but they will also mate with the oposit to have children.
Your answer to my phase is just the usual defensivness, and almost the exact wording usually used.
If everyone was a Doctor and no one was growing food then Yes, it would be a bad thing since a Doctor cant heal a starving man.
As it is not everyone is a Doctor, nor is everyone gay, so there is no worry eh? I'm just expressing my opinion.
I wasnt Capitalizing Gay because i wanted it to stand out, its just a grammer problem i have, i tend to Capitaize words that i dont use much. I have the same problem in writing y book; the editor will probobly have my head.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes - how dare a theatre show the movies they think their customers want to see. How dare they sully the idealistic world of moviemaking with their filthy economics!!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I had kept the article containing Ruzicka's horrified description of her first view of a naked marble statue at Caesar's Palace.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, Katie. Do you think the reason they pulled the movie was because they didn't think it'd make money?
How many stinkers does every theatre host a year? A week? This is clearly a case where the theatre owner is making a moral stand against a movie which centrally features a homosexual relationship. Whose theatre is dead center of the most sexually conservative area in the U.S.
I think the claim that this was an economic decision is misguided.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xan: To be gay rather than bisexual is to Only like your own gender; which means the person will never have children and therefor their genes wont carry on.
And we all agree that underpopulation is a HUGE PROBLEM nowadays.
Um, I mean,
<munch munch munch>
quote: i tend to Capitaize words that i dont use much. I have the same problem in writing y book; the editor will probobly have my head.
I'd work on that, if I were you.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just playing devils advocate; i really have no problem with the film.
What i have a problem with is people jumping on Airmanfour for having a diffrent opinion.
Tante Shvester: I'm not going to spend the whole thread playing ping-pong with people just bacause i didnt like that Airmanfour was getting jumped on for having a diffrent opinion.
As i said i know plenty of gay people; and am friends with them too.
Drop it; i'm not willing to continue what will continue for pages if we let it.
Accept that i have a diffrent opinion; it doesnt change who i am as a person, the fact i have gay friends is proof enough i'm not some rabid anti-gay guy.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The theatre did not give an explanation for why they weren't showing it. I doubt it was the personal feelings of the theatre owner, since they were going to show it and changed their mind. They probably got complaints, and decided it was in the economic interest to show the movies their customers wanted to see and not show the movies their customers didn't.
It's their business - I'm not going to fault them for working in their economic interest. I love movies, but trotting out "bravery" or "cowardice" as a motive for what to show is slightly hilarious to me. It's a business.
Ruzicka's on his own. So is Thompson - both of them are attributing ideological motives to what was, by all evidence, an economic decision.
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
quote:The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.
This is the statement that tells you that it wasn't an economic decision, IMO. Theatre owners don't just pull a movie hours before they premier it just because they don't think it will do well. If they don't think it'll do well, they show it on only one or two screens. Or they don't book it in the first place. I agree that they probably decided to pull it after receiving some complaints, but I think ultimately they probably weren't comfortable with the material.
The other reason I don't buy the economics argument is that the film has gotten stellar reviews, and is doing fairly well at the b.o. in a limited release. That makes it even stranger to pull it at the last minute. Critically acclaimed movies, even when they don't do all that well, get people to go to the movies who wouldn't normally. I don't think that a movie featuring gay cowboys would be a big hit in Utah, but surely they knew that when they ordered it in the first place. It's the last minute turn around that makes me think someone's making a statement.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either way, the owner refused to comment. What we guess the reason is says more about us than about the owner.
I refuse to castigate someone for the motives invented for him.
I also hate it when people want someone else to take all the risks for an ideological stance. It's easy to dictate what someone should from the safety of your living room.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't know JT, it could still be an economic decision, given that. Given how conservative the region is, it's entirely possible that the theater owner was concerned at the possibility of a boycott if the theater showed the film.
I'm not saying that this is certainly the case, but it's a possibility.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't agree with the ideological stance I "invented" for him.
But when I hear hoofbeats, I think "horsies", not "zebras".
[edit for Noemon] Yeah, I think that's a possibility too. I just don't think it's the most likely one. But as kat says, no way for us to determine from here what the motivation was. I just figured if there were boycotts afoot, we'd have heard about it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a business, and he had already decided to show it. I think it's likely that he made a business decision.
It seems much more likely than a few hours before it opened, the theatre owner said, "Oh my heck, I forgot! I hate gay people!"
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many stinkers does every theatre host a year? A week? This is clearly a case where the theatre owner is making a moral stand against a movie which centrally features a homosexual relationship. Whose theatre is dead center of the most sexually conservative area in the U.S.
I think the claim that this was an economic decision is misguided.
I think the first paragraph I quoted here is pretty good evidence that this was an economic decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when I hear hoofbeats, I think "horsies", not "zebras".
Xan, we're not jumping all over Airmanfour for expressing another opinion. We're jumping all over him for expressing an opinion in deliberate ignorance of the facts; namely, the fact he assumes it could be done just as well with a cowgirl shows that he does not know the story at all, and is just making up his argument as he goes.
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Legends of the Fall
Only if you're asserting that all movies set in cowboy country are "the same story". Or all movies set in cowboy country and dealing with romantic/sexual relationships. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a Western setting, after the turn of the century, two people fall madly in love and are able to be together for a season, and then are torn apart because of society's dissaproval. They could be together and one asks for it to happen, but the other refuses to pay the price and reject society to do so. It ends sadly.
The above is the description of both Brockback Mountain and Legends of the Fall.
Not saying that Brokeback Mountain isn't original. However, the central plot is an old story.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xan: Cant say i'm too thrilled myself; while i have nothing against gay people it isnt natural to not like the oposit sex.
It is if you're gay. Actually, if you're gay, it isn't natural not to like the same sex.
quote:Originally posted by Xan: If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
God didn't make everyone the same. Not everyone is gay, and not everyone is straight. I mean, if every person in the world spelled as well as you, written communication would be next to impossible. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you spelling that way.
quote:Originally posted by Xan: As i said i ahve nothing against it; doesnt mean its what nature intended.
posted
Because they didn't realize when they booked the movie what it was about? Or what their clientele's social leanings were?
A small percentage of the theatrical releases make a large percentage of the money. Hosting a stinker is no big deal. Cancelling one at the last minute is a big deal. That, to me, says that there's more to it than the possibility of lost revenue. That's before I factor in which movie this happened to, and the possible motives the owner might have for making this call. I don't know, maybe I'm way off base.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there is the possibility that you're both right--that there was some business/financial motation, and also some consideration of the impact of hosting a film that went against much of the theater's clientele's social leanings.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa. i respect your opinion, i just dont happen to share it.
But i'm not going to keep arguing; its pointless.
As long as i'm not out lynching and insulting gay people does it really matter if it bothers me?
I still have gay friends; so it isnt like my being against it is hurting anyone, people just seem to take it as an insult.
And for the record i'm Taoist, i dont beleive in 'God'. Just for the record so people know 'God intended' doesnt mean much to me. Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
That's totally unacceptable. If this can't be definitively decided by good ole fashioned arguing, then we'll have to arm wrestle. I'm not at all optimistic about my chances.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The central plot is an old plot. The stories are completely different stories. The particular societal disapproval is dramatically different so as to not even be comparable as can be demonstrated by the fact that Legends of the Fall didn't even hit the controvery radar while Brokeback Mountain is all over it.
Oh, and Brokeback Mountain is set closer to the turn of this century than the turn of the last one.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the story is different because the level of disapproval is more extreme, and it starts thirty years later?
It's a difference of degree, not of story.
In other words, is it a universal love story that anyone can relate to, or is it a gay love story and gay love stories are totally, completely different?
---
I was thinking the other day how happy relationships generally make unexciting stories. Two unattached people meet, are attracted, go on a date, have lots in common, kiss and it's great, there is no angst, so they decide to move to Denver together. That's not the story being told.
What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reason it's different is because a gay love story is totally foreign to a large chunk of the population. And even while most of the elements are the same, the fact that it's a same sex relationship makes the one little change a pretty big one. I for one have no ideas what sort of different challenges being a same sex couple presents.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are all "love stories" the same? I'm simply asserting that the differences outweigh the similarities to the degree that you can't just plug in a female in one of the roles and have the same story. Do you seriously believe otherwise? If we were argueing Romeo and Juliet vs. West Side Story, you might have a point. But we're not and the point you seem to be making appears to me to be simply to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. Do you believe that the stories are so similar to one another that swapping either male role for a female role would be insignificant?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
