It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: New Jane Fonda Movie Banned from Some Kentucky Theaters

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

By this logic, the gift shop at St. Patrick's Cathedral would have to sell porn alongside religious tapes.




Really.............? hum so theaters that don't like certain gender or race, perhaps predominant groups can stop showing movies of that type because they don't like what they see and they don't want you to see them either.

(By your logic..........)

I guess you agree that people in the US needs to be told what they can see or not.

And by the way what is wrong with selling porno for the ones that wants to buy it?

Or we are now monitoring what we can read or buy also.............


Or what we can eat............or who to married...........or what religion we should worship.

Yes we Americans need to be told everything, because others.........always knows best.

Good logic.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Unless they disagree with Bush/christians, then the opinion is wrong and they are going to hell. Wait, no one told me what I can type and what I can't, what will I do? HELP! I need someone to tell me if I can sit down on the toilet even if it is only number 1. I need someone to tell me that I can't read a book because it has "naughty" words in it. HELP!!!!!! Should I Post Reply or Preview Post? HELP! I need the Child Rapist R Us/GOP/christianity to tell me!



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
How can anyone claim this is censorship? The movie theater owners have a choice as to what to show in their privately owned theaters.


from marg
Perhaps is not just the excused of being "Jane's movie" but also the fact that more and more often we have seen how "groups" are monitoring what we are allowed to see or not.

You are allowed to see whatever movie you want. You are not allowed to force an owner into showing what you want.


from Zipdot
He's not a GROUP, he's not dictating any options to you, HE OWNS THE THEATRE and can show or not show whatever the hell he wants -- you have a problem with it? Go to another theatre or open your own theatre and lease the film reel and showing rights.

Bingo!


from marg
Actually when the theater is offering a pay service to the population the population has the right to be offered choices.

No the bias choices of the owners.

When you run a business for the public you have to appeal to everybody and not a certain group of people............that will fall into prejudiced and often racism.

Marg, I'm not picking on you, but that is totally untrue. A theater owner is under no obligation to offeryou choices. Your wages are not being garnished to pay for the theater, nor are you subsidizing the theater, so your wants do not translate into your rights.

Example: I can open a clothing store and cater only to big and tall clientele. If you happen to be short and skinny, I am under no obligation to carry your size clothing. I can sell only women's clothes. Etc., etc.


by James the Lesser
Same with Angelina Jolie, she doesn't have to get naked in a movie for it to be great.

No, but it is great when she is naked. As in Gia.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Really.............? hum so theaters that don't like certain gender or race, perhaps predominant groups can stop showing movies of that type because they don't like what they see and they don't want you to see them either.


Ever hear of BET? (Black Entertainment Television?)



I guess you agree that people in the US needs to be told what they can see or not.


I'm not following the logic here. The one single theatre owner is standing up for what he believes in, he's not telling you what to believe.

Zip



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Really.............? hum so theaters that don't like certain gender or race, perhaps predominant groups can stop showing movies of that type because they don't like what they see and they don't want you to see them either.

(By your logic..........)


Yes, that is the beauty of this nation and of capitalism. You, as a movie theater owner, can choose not to show a film because of gender or race issues. You could decide not to show a film at your theater because it stars a black man and you hate blacks. At the same time, I can choose not to go to that theater because the owner is a racist and it is reflected in his business. I can also choose to expose this truth to as many as I can, thereby dropping sales at the theater and eventually closing it down.

It's called free enterprise. You are free to conduct business as you choose, but customers are free to go to your competitors due to your choices. Unfortunately, due to some monopolies coming about in the US, sometimes you don't have the choice to take your business elsewhere anymore (Microsoft, ComEd), or the government forces you to run your store in a certain manner (affirmative action laws).



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
What you can no see is the way of control..........."limiting obtions".

Offer to the public only what you want to offer as a "righfull owner of the pay service"

Is control, like it or not, believable or not is control.

The sad thing.......... most people just fall right into it.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Many of you were not alive during the Nam era. Many of us out here, with money, and emotional attachments were, and still are.

The Viet Nam era was a divisive time for our country, probably almost as much as now, if the truth be known.

At any rate, what many of you who are saying and decrying censorhip, who weren't there, don't , in all probability, realize how deeply feelings still run over that war.

Jane Fonda said and did things that , had we been in a declared war, and not the political BS thing we were in, would have been considered traitorous. Her actions of contacting and staying with the enemy, the North Vietnamese, were seen, albeit, incorrectly, as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Again, simply due to the fact that it was not a declared war.

The fact that she apologized waaaaayyyy after the fact is, to some folks, the same as Ted Bundy apologizing for the horrors he caused and murder he comitted, waaaaaayyyy after the fact.

The owner of the theater is well within his right to not show the movie, for whatever reason that may be. Either as a support of the aging Viet Nam era people who were there and fought, or creating a hullaballoo and having more people come to his theatre (a good marketing ploy), or he simply thinks Jane Fonda sucks.

Before you get too down on Nam Vets, you have to think in terms of our parents who fought in WWII. Many of them (my mother-in-law included) won't buy or use things that are known to be made in Japan, or Germany.
She didn't care at all for my Nissan 300ZXs, nor my Subarus.

Emotion is a very hard and thorough anchor. Negative emotion even more so.


-Edit- Wish I could type....


[edit on 18-5-2005 by sigung86]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
In a sense of the word it is control, but not as mandated by a government, rather an individual. By that reasoning, we, Marg, are both guilty of the same thing because we control which thoughts of ours make it to these posts and which don't. That's controling information as much as not wanting to play a movie because you believe it is going to lower your sales and you don't like the lead actress.

Should the government start forcing theaters to show certain movies? How do they decide, there are many, many more movies out there than will ever get to your local theater or theaters. Should the government then bail out theaters when they go out of business because they're playing movies the government says they have to despite no one in their demographic watching those movies? Or maybe the government should also force Americans to see those films, too, to make sure those theaters practicing freedom (
) don't go out of business.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
marg, only the government and state is obligated to respecting the constitution and your rights, not any business, simple as that.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Actually JungleJake you forgot that the government prior to election did indeed was trying to stop two movies to been shown, one on prime TV the other one in the theaters, so hey, it has been done.

Nice when interest groups like big conglomerate control certain media outlets in favor of political candidates.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The government was doing that? And which movies would those be?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yeah, I just don't understand how some people can't grasp the ideas of "freedom" and "capitalism."

You can't force a theatre to show something any more than a theatre can force you to watch something.

Theatres limit our options every day. Each day, hundreds of films don't make it into mainstream theatres, and even mainstream films aren't shown in many major U.S. cities, or only portions of them. (Sin City showed on less than 1/3rd of Houston screens.) It's called business, babe. Markets.

You wanna talk about limiting options? I can open a theatre tomorrow that shows only one film - Back to the Future. My cinema could be called Back to the Future Cinema. I could show Back to the Future on all 12 screens in the theatre. If you, Marg Public, don't want to see Back to the Future, then don't come to my cinema.

If you want to see something I don't show, like Back to the Future 2, then you'll have to go to another cinema or rent it on DVD.

Saying "THEY CAN'T DO THAT," what are you talking about? Who's gonna stop them? Is the theatre owner going to be arrested? Are you going to sue the theatre owner?

Okay, then please be quiet and turn off your cellphone. The movie's about to start.

Zip



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
JSO, ? Where can I get this movie? Gonna go out to BB now.

Also, so, as long as the government/church approves of it it is ok. If they don't approve it then it is evil and needs to be banned. Nice.... and where was this done in the past/present? GERMANY! 1930-1940 ring a bell? CHINA! Communism sound familiar? RUSSIA! Communism sound familiar? CUBA! Communism sound familiar? North Korea/Vietnam! Communism sound familiar?

South Africa did the same thing, except it was books/movies that had blacks in it until the government was forced to stop being republicans, I mean racist.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
"Banned" is an emotionally loaded term, used to describe something being prevented or censored by duly appointed/elected/etc. officials. I'm not sure a private businessman's choice to not carry a certain product or service can be called "banned".

This is designed to inflame and justify more anti-Bush/anti-conservative leanings in the future.

In that case, I can say the toy stores here "Banned" alchohol and firearms..nevermind they've never sold them.

Speaking of which, I "Banned" McDonald's from my diet. I never buy from them.

and here's the kicker-many of the car dealerships around here have "Banned" all other competing marques...they refuse to carry these other brands! Shameful!

Bah. More rabble rousing, and not even particularly intelligent rabble rousing. But hey, if it can cast doubt on a conservative, or Bush, or the American South, then let's twist it, spin it, post it.

Hey then are we all justified then to go into bloody riots and burn down buildings and stuff since we've been insulted at the core of our belief system-Hollywood?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Also, so, as long as the government/church approves of it it is ok. If they don't approve it then it is evil and needs to be banned. Nice.... and where was this done in the past/present? GERMANY! 1930-1940 ring a bell? CHINA! Communism sound familiar? RUSSIA! Communism sound familiar? CUBA! Communism sound familiar? North Korea/Vietnam! Communism sound familiar?


Er...So you take an assumption, "as long as the government/church...", from out of nowhere, since the government and church have nothing to do with this story, and taking this assumption from out of your...mind, you use it to compare the US to Nazi Germany? Because a businessman doesn't want to show a movie?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Apparently, the film is so bad that the theater owners are probably saving money by not running it regardless of who is in it. On IMDb, the film has only 637 votes, which is not really enough to judge film quality, but I have never seen such polarization of votes on any film. From a demographic perspective, the film got pretty bad scores from every group except females under 18:

www.imdb.com...

www.imdb.com...

www.metacritic.com...

www.imdb.com...

[edit on 05/5/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
This is sad is a few Jane movies that I like.............Barefoot in the Park and Barbarella..........it may be another one but I can not remember.

And funny that I never has seen 9/11 by Moor or Saving Private Ryan, the two controvertial movies during election times.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The only movie I really like that has Jane Fonda in it is 9 to 5, I just love that, it's a true classic.

[edit on 5/18/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Rent 'em, then. (Edit: No one is going to knock on your door and deliver copies of those movies if you don't ask somebody to. Sometimes you have to take a proactive stance in life. If you want to win the lottery, you gotta buy a ticket.)

What was controversial about Saving Private Ryan?

Zip

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Interesting, as I check my messages here.

The only times I've been "Banned" (or voted down) for "excessive quoting" or somesuch, is from those liberal folks screaming loudest about "censorship".

It's only censorship if it goes against what *you* believe in. Otherwise, it's "protection". Call it "hate speech", or "propaganda", or "rhetoric" and then you can feel justified in your actions.

Too bad no one else is justified to do the same. Especially anyone even remotely conservative or Christian.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join