TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Theater cancels Brokeback Mountain
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Theater cancels Brokeback Mountain

From yahoo

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.

Well, it's the theater owner's right, right?

No surprises... it's America, and as if that weren't enough, it's UTAH of all places.

I suppose the decision to pull it out of theaters due to inconvenience had absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful general local cultural views of promoting discimination against gays and lesbians.

I'm amazed that this movie has gone so far into public and in mainstream theaters in America. I've seen giant billboards of it up right next to other movies like "Harry Potter: 4" front and center on theaters in suburbs. But I question whether it will get it's message across.

When I finally saw this movie a couple days ago in a suburban theater 20 miles North of Seattle, it was packed! But mostly with women. (Maybe there were lesbians in the crowd?) When I passed the theater in the Grove in LA showcasing this movie, it was swamped with gay guys. It seems to like this movie will strengthen the ideals of those who support homosexuality in general, but won't succeed in touching those who are still anti-gay, because those people will either choose not see the movie, or won't have access to see it.

Re: Theater cancels Brokeback Mountain

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic From yahoo Well, it's the theater owner's right, right?

That's true.
I seriously doubt it will effect anyone really.
If they're that desparate, they can just go to another theater.

As for breaking the contract, they'll just have to deal with the consequences...

yes, its the owners right but its the principle its a goddamn movie ffs, a romance by all accounts. oh no, not two guys!?

but america isnt AT ALL obsessed with sex, is it trancer x or lepanto?

land of the free & home of the brave my arse.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, its the owners right but its the principle its a goddamn movie ffs, a romance by all accounts. oh no, not two guys!? but america isnt AT ALL obsessed with sex, is it trancer x or lepanto? land of the free & home of the brave my arse.

So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film?
The horror!

If it's a privately owned theater then who the hell cares?

Projecting social 'values' on someone else's individual principles is not right.
I say if they doesn't want to show it then thats their choice.

They're in trouble because they broke a contract, not a 'principle' that wasn't even theirs in the first place by the looks of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film? The horror!

no, i would consider that equally shit & intellectually pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If it's a privately owned theater then who the hell cares? Projecting social 'values' on someone else's individual principles is not right. I say if they doesn't want to show it then thats their choice. They're in trouble because they broke a contract, not a 'principle' that wasn't even theirs in the first place by the looks of it.

hey, i defend their right to make the choice with their own theatre for sure. just as i defend my right to criticise that choice when its the wrong one. ffs the answer is always to ban, to censor to stop i have a real problem with decisions that highlight or replicate patterns of behaviour or attitudes i disagree with, thats all.

theres a difference between being legally & (for want of a better term) morally right. decisions like this hardly promote tolerance of lifestyle choices.

its a movie. about gay men. big fvcking deal. yeah, lets 'set an example' for utah people by showing that narrow-minded christian fascists are more important than our right to see art.

teehee
their theatre, their choice. big deal

pkcRAISTLIN: of course it wouldn't matter the least if it was a romance or a war movie. app it's not in their moral mind to show it either way. certainly you have morals/points of view that you would stand up for? and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice? wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

anyways, has anyone seen it yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So would this be different then if a gay theater that only showed gay films refused to show ONE straight film? The horror!

It would be different because straight people aren't socially oppressed or underrepresented in the media. There are a plethora of straight films and in fact, nearly every PG-13/R movie has a sub-plot where tension between two heterosexuals resolves in the end with (another fucking) kissy happy hetero ending. Meanwhile, it�s really refreshing for gay people to go to a normal theater instead of being pushed into a mediocre smaller one in the alternative gay section of town just to see a movie that for once they can relate to on a level of romantic intimacy.

Brokeback Mountain is not ONE of many gay films, but it's ONE of the first of its kind because of how good the content is and how far it has made it into mainstream theaters. This film is trying to integrate gay culture back into straight culture, and by pulling it, the owner is pushing gay culture back into its closet. I think pulling this film and reasoning that, "not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah," is upsetting because its tolerating discrimination against gay people. If you can reason and accept that it's the owner�s right to pull it, then you should be able to accept this kind of discrimination if an owner of a theater in North Dakota pulls �Men in Black 2� because it deals with black people, or if an owner of a theater in Oklahoma pulls �Meet the Fockers� because it deals with Jews.

It doesn't feel great to be discriminating against, but if it's okay for Larry Miller to discriminate when he opens his doors to the public to come in, then he is undermining the gay civil rights movement. If a tavern in the South wouldn't let black people in, would it be right to tell them not to be upset, but to go to the tavern down the street?

quote:

Originally posted by nilsit's not in their moral mind to show it either way. certainly you have morals/points of view that you would stand up for? and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice? wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

In this case, it�s a matter of morals and opinions, but I stand for equality for gay people. Censorship is one thing in private, but this theater is open to the public. If it is their right to not show the movie, it still doesn�t mean that I or other people who think the purpose is wrong, can�t openly protest or display our disagreement. Just because they have the right to do this, it doesn�t mean what they are doing is necessarily right.

quote:

Originally posted by nilsanyways, has anyone seen it yet?

I saw it two days ago and have been feeling pretty moody since. No "gay" movie I have seen as ever struck a nerve like this one has. It's not just about two gay men. It deals with the relationship between the straight and gay world and events that gay people deal with in reality. It�s great.

quote:

Originally posted by nils and is this 'blockade' stopping your freedom of choice?

well it would be if every theatre owner decided to folow suit, wouldnt it? and yeah, if that happened id say it was a pretty big fvcking deal.

quote:

Originally posted by nils wouldn't it be hypocritical to hinder them from this, as opposed to not letting THEM do it hence censorship?

id like some of whatever youre smoking. nowhere have i stated they should be hindered from doing so. i even said i supported their right to make such a decision, just that i disagreed strongly with their choice.

pass the joint dude.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson In this case, it�s a matter of morals and opinions, but I stand for equality for gay people. Censorship is one thing in private, but this theater is open to the public. If it is their right to not show the movie, it still doesn�t mean that I or other people who think the purpose is wrong, can�t openly protest or display our disagreement. Just because they have the right to do this, it doesn�t mean what they are doing is necessarily right.

agreed. of course, these sort of battles have, and will, continue. they are results of the democratic society. i say, let them do whatever they feel like. they are taking a stand in public. you might find it offensive and pick up the axe on the other side, or just leave it be. (well that wasn't bringing any new facts to the table )

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well it would be if every theatre owner decided to folow suit, wouldnt it? and yeah, if that happened id say it was a pretty big fvcking deal.

until then

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN id like some of whatever youre smoking. nowhere have i stated they should be hindered from doing so. i even said i supported their right to make such a decision, just that i disagreed strongly with their choice. pass the joint dude.

just throwing out a series of questions to get a point through. no need to be calling names

quote:

Originally posted by nils until then

You mean BACK then, when most theaters refused to show gay films, no matter how good, because the content was "far too controversial". I don't want America to go down that road again.

The theater is right, but for all the wrong reasons. They shouldn't be pulling the film because it's about gays ... they should be pulling it because it's a goddamned chick flick.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The theater is right, but for all the wrong reasons. They shouldn't be pulling the film because it's about gays ... they should be pulling it because it's a goddamned chick flick.

Fucking tell me about it! The Mrs. wants to see this damn flick so bad, but I really don't have a desire. The reviews are mixed, even though the good reviews seem to be glowing with award talk and this and that. I dunno, I just don't think there's too much out there to see right now. Kind of a lull period before the big-explosion-violent-no-plot-summer flicks.

So two guys get lonely and get it on up in dem dar hills. Big whoop. Throw me a fucking Ya Ya Sisterhood while you're at it, will ya?


(Disclaimer - yes, I saw that fucking Ya Ya movie with the Mrs. I have no excuse other then I couldn't find the remote on a hungover afternoon. I know I have pathetic tendencies, so don't bother.....)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The theater is right, but for all the wrong reasons. They shouldn't be pulling the film because it's about gays ... they should be pulling it because it's a goddamned chick flick.

HERE! HERE!

Hell yea!!!

I heard from my friend that the theater succumbed to pressure from the locals and is now playing the movie. Couldn't find this in the news, but I think it's awesome it's this is true. =)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So two guys get lonely and get it on up in dem dar hills. Big whoop. Throw me a fucking Ya Ya Sisterhood while you're at it, will ya?

I called the movie, "Bareback Mountain" and made fun of people who saw it. Then I saw it and feel bad for calling it "bareback" now...

And it's much better than Ya Ya Sisterhood (and I only saw that because I was on a flight and my choices were that or reading their flight propaganda mag).

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They shouldn't be pulling the film because it's about gays ... they should be pulling it because it's a goddamned chick flick.

You have no idea...everytime there was a kiss or nudity or punching in the movie I heard multiple loud "awwwwwww"s, "tee hee hee"s and "gasp"s from the audience. Either way, the chick in me loved the movie. =)

Anyway,
for those pussy guys out there who are hesitating, I still recommend to go see it: it's not just about two gay guys. Moreover, if I can watch all those god damn bloody straight movies where men are kissing women, then I think y'all can muster up the courage to watch two guys gettin giggity giggity with each other for once (p.s. there's boobs in the movie...yes, women titties).

The movie was actually pretty lame. I live in West Hollywood. 90% of the population here is gay (I am not). I get hit on by guys all the time no big deal, I take it as a compliment. With that said the movie was pretty bad. I saw that because it was groundbreaking in its own right and I thought that was cool. The movie was way to slow in all the wrong part and way to fast in all the right ones. Since it spanned most of their life times the director tried to cram that all together with poor rushed editing. Heck, you could even see the makeup pealing on Heath's eyes that was supposed to make him look older. I have never noticed movie makeup before in any movie unless it was meant to be noticed. This movie is living off its groundbreaking gay love story and nothing more. Total hype. Very poorly done movie on a very good book.

quote:

Originally posted by mischief I live in West Hollywood. 90% of the population here is gay (I am not). I get hit on by guys all the time no big deal, I take it as a compliment.

Hey, we're neighbors, I live in weho too. I get hit on by guys all the time, but I'm usually an ass to them (because I am gay and I don't appreciate old ugly men following me everywhere). Do you know any places that play good trance? All the gay clubs play horrible horrible dance remixes of gay top 40. It makes my ears sad.

quote:

With that said the movie was pretty bad. I saw that because it was groundbreaking in its own right and I thought that was cool. The movie was way to slow in all the wrong part and way to fast in all the right ones. Since it spanned most of their life times the director tried to cram that all together with poor rushed editing. Heck, you could even see the makeup pealing on Heath's eyes that was supposed to make him look older. I have never noticed movie makeup before in any movie unless it was meant to be noticed. This movie is living off its groundbreaking gay love story and nothing more. Total hype. Very poorly done movie on a very good book.

I'm not sure if any striaght guy will enjoy this movie. I thought it was a bit slow too, but that's because I was expecting more action. On the other hand, I understood and felt the love/romance scenes as I've had similar experiences from being gay (as many gay guys do) on what it's like to fall for a guy and at the same time feel pressured to keep it secret in fear of being chastized or physically abused. I think it's the concepts in the movie and how real the acting was that I connected to, so I wasn't paying attention to the make-up.

Women only want to see the film because they can relate to gay men more than strait. They all, for some reason, have a facination with them.

On to more important issues...
I personally am sick of all the gay publicity, especially here in Canada. I do not understand why gays make such a fuss over getting married. I have no problems with gays, or with gays having relationships. If you love someone, then you love someone, why do you have to get married. It seems to me that people seem to fight for things they do not have, not because they need them, but because they cannot have them.

No one should descriminate gays, but at the same time, they sould not be going out a yelling out 'I am gay, look at me!' on the streets. Gays are gay, Jews are Jewish and individual identity is your to keep, not something you go around screaming out.

quote:

Originally posted by toshirozawa Women only want to see the film because they can relate to gay men more than strait. They all, for some reason, have a facination with them. On to more important issues... I personally am sick of all the gay publicity, especially here in Canada. I do not understand why gays make such a fuss over getting married. I have no problems with gays, or with gays having relationships. If you love someone, then you love someone, why do you have to get married. It seems to me that people seem to fight for things they do not have, not because they need them, but because they cannot have them.

Well it's an issue because there are still ppl opposing such thing.

I mean why care about discriminating issues? The back of the bus was as good as the front of the bus after all

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well it's an issue because there are still ppl opposing such thing. I mean why care about discriminating issues? The back of the bus was as good as the front of the bus after all

THANK YOU! And Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by toshirowawa If you love someone, then you love someone, why do you have to get married.

Good idea. I'll make sure Canada passes a new bill that bans all people from getting married. This way you won't have to worry about those annoying legal and civil rights getting in the way of your love when you settle down with someone of the other sex.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I mean why care about discriminating issues? The back of the bus was as good as the front of the bus after all

What the black people of America endured was a lot different then what gays endure in modern society. I am against discrimination of any race, sexual preference, handicap, etc etc. But I believe that gays have a million fold more rights and freedoms than the blacks did back in the day.

I have gone to Toronto and have seen gay communities and if they did not have the 7color banner everywhere, you would think it's just the average town in Toronto. Point being, gays (at least in Canada) live like every other person. They can sit where they want, drink from whatever founting, and they do not have to worry about being discriminated against.

quote:

Originally posted by toshirozawa What the black people of America endured was a lot different then what gays endure in modern society. I am against discrimination of any race, sexual preference, handicap, etc etc.

WTF?! You dont believe in any discrimination on sexual preference, but you still agree that the goverment should treat a marriage different depending on their sexual preference?! Doesn't seem contradicting at all!

quote:

But I believe that gays have a million fold more rights and freedoms than the blacks did back in the day.

So just because gays have most rights, that mean it's okay to discriminate them on some things?!

quote:

I have gone to Toronto and have seen gay communities and if they did not have the 7color banner everywhere, you would think it's just the average town in Toronto. Point being, gays (at least in Canada) live like every other person. They can sit where they want, drink from whatever founting, and they do not have to worry about being discriminated against.

Well then again gays have every right any other person have in Toronto

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd No surprises... it's America, and as if that weren't enough, it's UTAH of all places.

I hate this type of argument. Its a cheap shoot at American bashing - as if any other country in the world wouldn't have similar.

1 out of 10,000+ movie cinemas in the USA chose not to run the movie and now all of a sudden ALL the USA is "intolerant" and biggots.... as if places such as San Fransico, West Hollywood, and NYC, didn't exist...


I'm sure in most any other Western nation you would have a similar phenomena with 1 out of 10,000+ movie cinema deciding not to show it... its healthy; who want's society to be monogomeous and homogenius?!

I hate how so-called "tolerant people" are intolerant of intolerant people.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I hate how so-called "tolerant people" are intolerant of intolerant people.

Reverse discrimination is a bitch...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.