quote:I do respect the theater owner's right not to show it.
I don't respect anyone making horrible financial decisions based upon what, basically, appears to be a biased and ugly personal viewpoint.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't respect anyone making horrible financial decisions based upon what, basically, appears to be a biased and ugly personal viewpoint.
I do. Because business owners have the right to do stupid things based on any kind of reason. The beauty is, if the public agrees with you, the business owner will pay for it by losing business.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
One of the many problems with this argument is the fact that the people in Utah aren't objecting to this movie at all and it's not just "the gay community" that is supporting it.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Spoken like armchair moralist who has never had a business to run.
I run a business. Wrap your head around the fact that Larry H. Miller's decision is costing him many thousands of dollars in lost revenue.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrap your head around the fact that he may have reasons other than the ones you choose to invent for him.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because business owners have the right to do stupid things based on any kind of reason.
I'm not arguing against his right to do it. I'm saying I don't respect what I consider to be the utter stupidity of it.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my husband and I owned a business we made lots of decisions that cost us money because of our moral principles. Lots. Had we compromised our beliefs on certain things, like say overcharging customers, paying bribes to inspection officials, and other things we'd probably still be in business and have made a huge profit. But we didn't do it because our own moral principles were more important to us than money.
If this man has made a decision based on moral principles (and from what I've read he hasn't commented so we don't even know if that's the case) I do respect it. I would respect a Jewish theater owner who didn't want to show Passion of the Christ for example, if he thought it was anti-Semitic. I disagree that it was anti-Semitic but I would respect his decision to not show it.
For whatever reason this guy chose to pull Brokeback Mountain, I say he had the right to do so and I have no quarrel with it. Some things are more important than money. If this is one of those things for this theater owner, then I respect him for his stand, even if I may not entirely agree with it. Like I said, I find many more movies more offensive to me than the thought of this one.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, If I could break through your shell of perceived victimhood and egocentrism, I think it might help. Your behavior here is not correct. You are obviously not paying enough attention to what Karl is saying, as the example he provided (which you've pretty completely ignored) shows extremely clearly.
If you accept that and even perhaps try not to do it in the future, you can have a respectful conversation here, and, who knows, maybe Hatrack will be a less nasty place. Otherwise, I don't think you're going to be able to. But the choice is yours.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, if only I respected anything you said. Seriously, why do you follow me around commenting on me? You know I don't listen, so I am forced to believe you are either obsessed or using me to preen. Either way, knock it off.
Here were my choices as presented to me.
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
You don't understand why I'm angry about that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, Would you respect a racist theater owner's decision not to show films that cast black characters in a positive light? Is it just making a stand on your beliefs that is important or do the content of the beliefs matter as well?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm not, and repeatedly accusing me of not dealing in good faith is pissing me off.
You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree. I'm done. *furious*
I'm still waiting to find out how you disagree with me. Your points of disagreement have been:
quote: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.
quote: I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
quote:I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles.
and
quote:As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
None of those are remotely what I have argued, and only in the last case did you do me the courtesy of flagging your mis-statement of my arguement as an attempt at re-stating it and asking if you got it right. The other ones are nothing more than figments of your own mind you try to attribute to me for reasons unimaginable to me if I can't assume you're just trying to score points.
I have no doubt that you are intelligent. I have no doubt that you disagree with me. Perhaps that disagreement is legitimate, or perhaps it is because you just want to disagree, but for all your intelligence you haven't demonstrated the former. I'm sorry that my calling you on it has pissed you off. I hope my record here at Hatrack shows that I don't generally make a habit of jumping to offense.
quote:You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree.
I re-quote this because I hope I'm not deluded in my feeling that you must be about the only person on this board who even remotely feels I have problems "dealing" with people who disagree with me. I do have a problem dealing with people who repeatedly and unappologetically mis-state my arguement and then rebut the mis-statement.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, you have no idea how the industry works. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question.
Presumably the movie theater owner does understand how the industry worked. It might not have been an accurate economic decision, but I seriously doubt a theater owner would take action he thinks will cause him serious economic harm.
I think it was definitely an economic decision, based on an assessment of the likely economic impact of the moral issues surrounding the film. If a theater thinks the backlash from patrons for playing the movie would be worse than the fines and the backlash from distributors, then it is an economic decision to drop the movie.
Under that analysis, it is accurate to say it was pulled based on moral sensibilities and it is accurate to say it was pulled for economic reasons.
Either way, I have no problem with a theater dropping films considered objectionable by its patrons, as long as contractual obligations are fulilled.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
*still angry* I think you're biased on this topic and refuse to grant what I'm saying legitimacy. That's not my problem.
I'm saying exactly what the link you provided said - did you see that part? That it's a love story first, and that it's an old story with a different twist on it. Maybe you disagree with how similiar stories need to be before they are the same story, but it is highly unfair for you to paint me as stupid or dishonest because I don't agree with you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, The option you are being asked to consider is to actually read what Karl has written and respond to that, rather than the much wekaer arguments that you've made up for him. I don't think you're getting that you are clearly not accurately getting what Karl is saying.
Think about it, you've accused Karl of not being able to handle people disagreeing with him. You might want to consider that other people might have a point here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
This is a very good point and one I'd like to address. The story resonates with me, not because of the cheating or because I feel that "love conquers all" or anything of the sort. The story is very real in that these two men had a love that was doomed from the start. They could have nourished their love from the beginning and been killed for it later. They could have lied to themselves about who they are and lost themselves in the false lives they built to fill the void.
I know what it's like to be expected to marry despite being gay. I was counseled by more than one religious leader that I needed to get married and the feelings I was struggling with would probably go away. I was even told by one of them that it would be a good idea if I got married to not discuss my homosexual tendencies with my prospective wife because it would be harder to put them behind me. I think the far greater sin than cheating on their wives was getting married to them in the first place. But regardless, seeing, enjoying, being moved by, or otherwise supporting a film does not equal support of all the choices of the characters involved therein. I loved Requiem for a Dream but despised nearly every choice of every character in it. I love the film because it made me love the characters in it despite the errors of their choices. I felt I knew them and cared for them even as they basically went to hell on earth. That made the film all the more powerful.
A film can be important and worthy of support if it is truthful, even if the truth it shows isn't pleasant, or even noble, or if the moral choices of the characters is questionable.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, Would you respect a racist theater owner's decision not to show films that cast black characters in a positive light? Is it just making a stand on your beliefs that is important or do the content of the beliefs matter as well?
I would not respect his reason for making the decision, but I would respect his right to make it.
I dont' think a person like that would be in business very long, fortunately.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie theater owner has little say over what movies he'll be allowed to show and at what price. It's often the case where the booker takes a few dogs to get a good movie. Or they'll agree to run it in a certain number of theaters, or only in theaters with a certain type of sound system. Or they might take a bigger percent of the take the first few weeks. The distributors are the ones with the power.
It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out from this (in the theaters ability to book future movies, not whether or not people boycott the theater.) Right now, I don't think any of us are in a position to say that this was a financial decision. I'm not even sure if the owner knows the full ramifications of his actions yet. Like I said, the distributors may be forgiving because it's Utah. Or because the owner is high-profile. But to say, as many have, that this movie was pulled for financial reasons is, at best, only half true. But I doubt it's even half true.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, seriously, go away. I don't feel like being your practice field for the lay psychology. You do not have permission to comment on me, and your continued insistence on doing so is creeping me out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: No, the way to read that is that the other SLC theatre which showed the movie had the 9th highest per screen average take in the nation.
Oh, well, erm, oops. Thanks for the (polite) clarification.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what time period he was doing it in. He'd have had no trouble for the majority of time there were movie theaters.
So, in this case, if the theater owner made his deciosn because of having problems with gays, is it admirable or just something he has a right to do?
To me, there's a big difference between what people have a right to do and things I don't have a problem with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, you seem to be assuming that a financial decision can't be bad. Whether or not the owner knows the full ramifications of his actions yet is not relevant as to whether he had financial reasons for his decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You do not have permission to comment on me, and your continued insistence on doing so is creeping me out.
Holy crap. We have to get permission to respond to your comments?
I don't think so. You put them out there, we comment on them. If it creeps you out, stop posting.
quote:Kayla, you seem to be assuming that a financial decision can't be bad.
I'm not assuming that. He could be making a bad financial decision. However, if that were true, then the reason he pulled the movie from the theater wouldn't be because "for financial reasons" as adamantly argued early by others.
If he knew it was a bad financial decision, the only reason to do it would be because of his moral code.
And if he pulled it without knowing the full financial cost, he's a fool, but is still pulling it for other than financial reasons.
Can you think of a reason to pull the movie and lose money?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, You seem to have mistaken Hatrack for your imperial throne room. If you want me to stop trying to get you to behave respectfully and errr non-nastily, I think your best bet may be to start behaving more respectfully and non-nastily. But who knows, maybe the dictatorial commands will work out for you. Good luck with that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
You don't understand why I'm angry about that?
You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
I don't care if you agree with me. Lots of people disagree with me. I'm fine with disagreement. I don't even care about an apology. I'd just like some indication that you understand why I'm upset with you and that it's even the slightest bit important to you that we not be upset at one another. I know that I have been harder on you than I normally am with people, but I feel very disrespected by you in this thread. Feeling that way, I've been very careful to state only what I believe is the truth of the situation and to not be unnecessarily vicious. You've given me "Bite me." So, yeah, I kinda do wonder why you are angry at anyone but yourself.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, in this case, if the theater owner made his deciosn because of having problems with gays, is it admirable or just something he has a right to do?
It's something he has a right to do. His reasons for it may or may not be admirable. I think I said (no, I KNOW I said) I didn't really have much of a problem with the film. It doesn't cause me to lose sleep to think there is a film out there about gay characters in a forbidden love arrangement.
But I don't have a problem with what the theater owner did regardless of his reason. If a racist theater owner refused to show Glory Road for example, I wouldn't have a problem with it, because it's his decision and he will either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of the decision. I probably would personally choose never to patronize that particular theater again, but I don't think there should be anything that prevents him from making that type of decision. He has the right to make the decision and I have the right to decide not to give him any of my money. Just like this situation - if people are upset, then don't go there.
I would suspect he is already paying some type of financial price because he broke a contractual agreement. He may pay an even greater one. Maybe he'll even wind up out of business over it. Maybe it's the stupidest decision he ever made. I still support his right to make that decision.
Just because you don't agree with people on certain subjects doesn't mean you can't respect their rights. I respect the right of the KKK to exist and to assemble under the first amendment, even though I find their beliefs reprehensible.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I haven't suggested that the reason we disagree is because you are being stupid or dishonest. You are feeling disrespected?
quote:You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
That's just #3 restated.
No, I do not want us to be upset with each other. I also do want to feel like if I disagree with you, then I am doing something wrong, either through stupidity or dishonesty. It is so unfair to suggest that.
Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, And I agree with you on that. There should be nothing to prevent this guy or the KK or whoever from exercising their rights. But we've got the right to approve or disapprove of their decisions.
I'd read what you said before:
quote:If this man has made a decision based on moral principles (and from what I've read he hasn't commented so we don't even know if that's the case) I do respect it.
as implying that you respect this decsion, not on a "he's got the right to do it" basis, but because he made a stand based on his moral principles.
edit: Although going back over your last, I get the feeling that we're using different meanings for things. The way I'm saying things, choosing never to go to a theater whose owner wouldn't show Glory Road because he was racist would constitute having a problem with his decision. You seem to be using it more in a "he should legally be prohibited from doing this" way. I think, anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, if that were true, then the reason he pulled the movie from the theater wouldn't be because "for financial reasons" as adamantly argued early by others. If he knew it was a bad financial decision, the only reason to do it would be because of his moral code. And if he pulled it without knowing the full financial cost, he's a fool, but is still pulling it for other than financial reasons. Can you think of a reason to pull the movie and lose money?
Sure. But I doubt anyone at this point can say he will definitely lose money, and it's a far cry from misanalyzing the repercussions and being a "fool." It's very possible that if the distributors retaliate, he'll attract customers who like him "standing up to Hollywood."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, we absolutely *can* say he will lose money. In fact, he already HAS lost money from the cancellation.
What is conjecture is whether or not the cancellation will end up having some kind of positive effect in the future that will make up for that lost revenue.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Customers seeing what movies, exactly. Like I said, the movie distribution industry is a cartel. When you're blacklisted, what movies are you going to show?
Sure, it's extreme, and unlikely to happen to a theater in Utah, especially one owned by such a high profile person. But, if the industry wanted to, they could bankrupt a regular theater owner.
But like I said, I doubt that will happen. Focus Films might never give him another chance at a film, but I think the fall out will barely register with this guy. My only point is that there is no way anyone can say this was a financial decision with at least acknowledging the fact that the financial decision was based on a moral code.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the thing I object to the most about this situation is the stain of negative perception it leaves on the great state of Utah.
Everywhere else in the world people are reading about this and thinking that Utahns really are this backwards; when in fact we're not.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It really isn't, you know. People often misunderstand each other and make mistakes based on this misunderstanding, even when they are not trying to do so. I've even said I don't think that you're doing this on purpose.
You're a proud person, but I believe you have it in you to admit that you've made mistakes and even behaved disrespctfully. I think you'd have more to be proud of if you did this than if you continue insisting that there's no way you could have done anything wrong and that the people saying that you did are just out to get you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of go away do you not understand? I don't want you analyzing me - it's creeping me out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Karl, I haven't suggested that the reason we disagree is because you are being stupid or dishonest. You are feeling disrespected?
quote:You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
That's just #3 restated.
No, I do not want us to be upset with each other. I also do want to feel like if I disagree with you, then I am doing something wrong, either through stupidity or dishonesty. It is so unfair to suggest that.
I think it's abundantly clear that you have misrepresented my arguement in several places. I have pointed them out to you. I won't call this "stupidity", per se, but it is at the very least disrespect of my posting, especially in light of the fact that you don't even acknowledge that you have done so. Only you know to what degree the offense is dishonesty or whether it is something else, but that the offense exists is plainly posted throughout this thread. It's not unfair to suggest some sort of deficiency on your part in this, but stupid is your word, not mine, and I'm open to any other adjectives you want to give it.
quote:Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
Of course not. I implied as much above. But again, "Forbidden Love" is not a story or even plot. It is a category. Brokeback Mountain isn't the same story as Legends of the Fall or Romeo and Juliette or The Tragic Story of the Cat Who Loved the Dog. Despite all of them being stories of Forbidden Love. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, we absolutely *can* say he will lose money. In fact, he already HAS lost money from the cancellation.
Money is fungible, and I was using the term "lose money" as an evaluation of all the effects.
quote:Customers seeing what movies, exactly. Like I said, the movie distribution industry is a cartel. When you're blacklisted, what movies are you going to show?
Sure, it's extreme, and unlikely to happen to a theater in Utah, especially one owned by such a high profile person. But, if the industry wanted to, they could bankrupt a regular theater owner.
As you said, it's unlikely.
quote:My only point is that there is no way anyone can say this was a financial decision with at least acknowledging the fact that the financial decision was based on a moral code.
Which I did (and I know you didn't say I didn't ).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:edit: Although going back over your last, I get the feeling that we're using different meanings for things. The way I'm saying things, choosing never to go to a theater whose owner wouldn't show Glory Road because he was racist would constitute having a problem with his decision. You seem to be using it more in a "he should legally be prohibited from doing this" way. I think, anyway.
Yes, Squicky, I was thinking more in the line of he shouldn't be prohibited from doing this and I don't think anyone has implied that he should.
So, like you said earlier, there needs to be demarcation - I can respect a right to do something even if I disagree with the reason behind it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Then we are disagreeing on what the term "same" means. I think they are all the same story, in that they all resonate for the same reason and all work as stories for the same reason. Halfway through the story, I knew how it had to end, because that's how forbidden love stories in our culture end. To me, that makes it the same story. That's not an insult or a dismissal - it's an aknowledgement the story is part of the universal human story.
How is that a bad thing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
I'm pretty sure most of page two was devoted to this very topic. Were you not paying attention. He repeatedly said they were not. Unless you only read the one concession he made which was "You win. A story is a story is a story. If you can find the slimmest point wherein two elements intersect then they're basically the same thing."
Every movie with a horse is the same story. Is that your point?
quote: Everywhere else in the world people are reading about this and thinking that Utahns really are this backwards; when in fact we're not.
Hey, at least you're not Kansas. (That should be the new Utah State Motto. "Hey, at least we aren't Kansas.") Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad Karl posted before you did, Kayla - his aknowldgement just highlights how rude you are.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star Wars and Blue Velvet are the same story. Both have bad guys who wear black and breathe through masks, and a hero who yearns for adventure.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I wasn't here for page 2, but I think that being so rude and dismissive of kat was a bit uncalled for, kayla.
I think she makes very valid points, I think all of us here have probably done some study of mythic archetype, and there are universal story themes that resonate, that's why they get repeated so often.
And I'm puzzled why the idea that Brokeback Mountain is an archetypal forbidden love story is a bad thing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, The mythical archetype thing isn't really what's being debated though. Both Karl and I have made the point that, yes, this story fits into the "Forbidden Love" catgeory, but that it is also indelibly marked by being a man-man "forbidden love" story. Karl's argument, to me, seems to say that removing this element would completely change the story (I don't know. Haven't seen it.).
edit: That is, I don't think anyone (except for kat when she describes her version of what Karl is saying) is saying that it's incorrect to consider Brokeback Mountain as part of the "Forbidden Love" archetype. What Karl was saying is that it is incorrect to say that it could be essentially the same story if the principles were a man and a woman.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Then we are disagreeing on what the term "same" means. I think they are all the same story, in that they all resonate for the same reason and all work as stories for the same reason. Halfway through the story, I knew how it had to end, because that's how forbidden love stories in our culture end. To me, that makes it the same story. That's not an insult or a dismissal - it's an aknowledgement the story is part of the universal human story.
How is that a bad thing?
I said very early on that we were using different thresholds of "same". Again, I have absolutley no problem with you disagreeing with me.
I hope you will re-read this thread carefully. I respect your disagreement with me to the degree it is disagreement with me. I do not appreciate the "<insert something Karl didn't say in such a way that it looks like his arguement> <insert pithy counter-arguement>" manner in which the discussion progressed. I think you will find that my anger is born of this irresponsible arguing tactic and not of any legitimate disagreement. That IMO poor tactic is why I feel disrespected. I'm sorry for the hard words, but I do feel they are warranted. Maybe this should have happened in private email. Maybe it wouldn't have happened there. I honestly don't feel, however, that I have been out of line. I'm willing to consider evidence (in context) to the contrary. I don't think "You have misrepresented me. It seems that is carelessness or dishonesty" is out of line. I don't think it's out of line to lean more toward the latter when the instances are pointed out and pointedly ignored. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
