Skip to comments.
Theaters shut out film Bush-Assassination Movie a Victim of `Landscape of Fear,' Maker Says
The Mercury News ^
| October 27, 2006
| Bruce Newman
Posted on 10/28/2006 5:23:52 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Edited on 10/28/2006 6:51:17 PM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
The largest movie-theater operator in the United States won
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bush; snufffilm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
"To refuse to accept ads for a movie is tantamount to saying it shouldn’t be seen," said Chris Ball, an executive at Newmarket, "and this runs counter to everything we are supposed to believe in as a free society."Orwellian, no?
To: buccaneer81
Gosh...I can hear the libs whining from here...
2
posted on
10/28/2006 5:24:42 PM PDT
by
Crim
(I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
To: buccaneer81
They may need to show this movie in x-rated theaters since this subject excites the Dems so.
3
posted on
10/28/2006 5:27:43 PM PDT
by
msnimje
(You simply cannot be Christian and Pro-Abortion.)
To: buccaneer81
I question the judgement of the 91 theaters that chose to show it.
To: msnimje
Keep it in the can until Hillary! is pres.
5
posted on
10/28/2006 5:28:50 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Islam is the religion of violins, NOT peas.)
To: buccaneer81
good idea. No one wantg to see thay crap.
6
posted on
10/28/2006 5:30:40 PM PDT
by
yldstrk
(My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
To: buccaneer81
A lot of the theater owners (a) don't want to advertise a movie they're not going to show (b) don't want the patrons to get disgusted with the ad, walk out and demand their money back (c) indulge a movie that is absolutely tanking, even by the standards of its limited release.
7
posted on
10/28/2006 5:30:55 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(Mwahahahahahahahaha -- official evil laugh of the North American Union)
To: buccaneer81
I haven't seen the movie, but I suspect that the reason they won't show it is because it could generate sympathy for Bush. What happens when a President is assassinated? All of a sudden he becomes a (former) great leader. It's only natural, just as people tend to be kinder to others when delivering their eulogy than when they are alive.
8
posted on
10/28/2006 5:32:13 PM PDT
by
RussP
To: buccaneer81
Orwellian, no?No. It's the free market determining if it wants to alienate its customers. Where is the government coercion bringing this about, especially since there are theater owners who think that showing this movie will not alienate their regular customers?
9
posted on
10/28/2006 5:33:16 PM PDT
by
Socratic
( "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" - J.S. Mill)
To: Socratic
I was referring to the comment from the studio exec.
10
posted on
10/28/2006 5:37:32 PM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: buccaneer81
To: Socratic
Excatly right. Theater owners are in business to make money. They choose to show or not show movies all the time. This is a daily mode of operation. The movie should go straight to video if theaters won't show it. I'm sure the DU freaks would buy tons of them to place next to their copy of V for Vendetta.
To: buccaneer81
I am trying to find the story at the link and have not been able to. Bad eyes. Can you help point me to it?
13
posted on
10/28/2006 5:41:26 PM PDT
by
Bahbah
(Shalit, Goldwasser and Regev, we are praying for you)
To: buccaneer81
Forgive my misinterpretation.
14
posted on
10/28/2006 5:42:09 PM PDT
by
Socratic
( "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" - J.S. Mill)
To: Bahbah
15
posted on
10/28/2006 5:44:16 PM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: Wheee The People
Good point. Did or will these same theaters show Obsession? I think not.
To: msnimje
They may need to show this movie in x-rated theaters since this subject excites the Dems so. It should be seen as a double feature along with a movie of a partial birth abortion. That should have the audience positively orgasmic.
To: msnimje
At least they could be assured Paul Rubens would see it.
LOL
18
posted on
10/28/2006 5:50:07 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
To: Bahbah
Thge link I gave you is bad (subscription.)Try this:
Go back to the original link at the top of this thread. When the homepage comes up go to the menu on the left and click -entertainment-, then when the next page come up, under -entertainment-, click -movies-. You can't miss it.
19
posted on
10/28/2006 5:52:04 PM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: buccaneer81
Its not appropriate. Free speech has limits and the 1st Amendment only applies to governmental conduct, not to anything private businesses, non-profit associations, clubs and individuals decide. They can set their own rules. For decades, mainstream theaters have refused to carry porn films, family newspapers don't advertise them - and they have the right not to show and advertise snuff films.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
20
posted on
10/28/2006 5:57:16 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson