1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Theater owner shuts down for jackass 2

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by palefrost, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you consider him shutting down his thearter as censorship? What about the fact that he was sheltering the town from something he felt was a personal standard, should that be allowed?
     
  2. kelkat

    kelkat New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think he was sheltering anyone. I think he was making a business decision about what he would and would not carry in his theater. Perfectly within his right, especially since he paid his employees for the weeks he was closed.
     
  3. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is an excellent jumping point for discussing business rights in relation to contract and social ramifications. To me, it is particularly significant not so much that his theater was one of the only sources of entertainment, but rather that it was the only theater in town. This gives him a (as far as can be said of a farming town of 6000) monopoly over film screening, which I believe carries a fair bit of import. Despite my partially sympathising with his position, as he found himself in quite the bind, it is his very situation which makes his actions constitute a form of censorship regardless of his aims or intentions. As to whether this is 'unconsitutional' or outside his rights I cannot be sure.
     
  4. kelkat

    kelkat New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I live in a small town as well, but within just a few miles of this town are several other towns that have theaters. If I need a movie fix that bad, and my theater has closed, then I can drive to another town.

    It's not like movies are a need. It's entertainment. It is impossible to have a monopoly on entertainment.
     
  5. karenlyn

    karenlyn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dong-- I think you have a good point. I'm not in favor of censorship, but neither am I in favor of telling a private company what it can and can't do. But a company like this one that has a monopoly DOES have a responsibility-- and his actions are a sort of censorship. I think you hit the nail head on.
     
  6. Brandon

    Brandon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Record labels! They don't have a monopoly on music per-se but music artists are bound by a contract which limits their abilities to a certain extent.

    What mile radius are you drawing this conclusion? There are countless movie theater chains and plenty of independents around. Just because the theater is the only one in town does not make it a monopoly. You can still drive to another theater to see the movie.
     
  7. l99999us

    l99999us New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally (while i may be concerned if it was a political movie) I don't think the theater owner should be required to show a particular movie. While it may inconvenience the town their are certainly other options such as going to other theaters or renting/ordering on netflix when it comes out on tape.
     
  8. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I would agree Todd...if there were the other options. I agree on the general level that it's impossible to have a monopoly on all entertainment (this is trivially true) but I was referring to locally. As this is a discussion point, I shall say I did presume that it was significant that his was the only theater around town, as this implies that it would also be the only theater conveniently available, and what's more, was a common source of entertainment. We must understand their context more to make judgments regarding such, as I believe some of these comments fail to do so.

    On a personal note though, if these were the only films that Boardman was allowed to, or could screen, then I am not entirely unsympathetic to his decision, as I implied earlier.
     
  9. capitalist_junkie

    capitalist_junkie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At one point, one of the theaters in my area was refusing to screen anything distributed by Miramax. It was really annoying, but we got through it. I guess to me it's just not that big a deal.
     
  10. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's fine to call presumptions into question, but as I've said twice now before, I was under the impression that it was safe to presume that it is a big deal for the residents of this particular town, and that is precisely why this is a topic of interest.

    I too would be interested to see some kind of socio-cultural vignette of the town, and to see if there wasn't any more opportunity for other avenues of constructive entertainment. I get the impression that films like Jackass and Beerfest would not actually relate appropriately/particularly well with the residents of such a town as the cultural presumptions made by both films do not match the cultural circumstances of the town.
     
  11. hokeshel

    hokeshel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is censorhsip but, not in the way I think you are asking. All of us censor things everyday, when I decide that I won't buy sodapop or allow my kids to watch certain porgrams, I am censoring. This man is running his business his way. His censorship of these movies is his right as a business owner. We can't be forced to watch the movie, why should he be forced to show it?
     
  12. Agaric

    Agaric New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally I think theater owners should start refusing to show certain pictures simply because they're garbage. Showing these films only encourages more garbage. I don't think I'm being a film snob, most of you can agree that there is plenty of hack-written, dull, sight-gag-ridden crap coming out of hollywood. I think similarly about radio DJs who are able to say pretty much any kind of foul mouthed junk they want about breasts and defacation, but they aren't allowed to say "man, I think this song we just played really sucks up the wazoo."
     
  13. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree to an extent. I think the ones who should demand more are the public in general. Hollywood is realizing that just because the movie has Tom Cruise in it doesnt make it a box office hit anymore. They have started to actually concentrate on story and plots now. Its going to take a few year to see this effect in place but over the last few years the box office numbers have been horrible and they need to start making better movies or its not going to be pretty.
     
  14. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems that economics drives the bus regardless of just how much sucking up the wazoo some people declare particular things to be. The main risk of any form of censorship seems to be in the moral presumptions made- that it can turn into a form of tyranny on the minorities, or alternative perspectives. I appreciate that this is distinct from the craptacular that is the a huge portion of the pop culture scene, but it's difficult to tell sometimes whether shock-jockeying is economically or socially driven. Not to say that everything is drivel, but let's see what happens these next few years.
     
  15. Agaric

    Agaric New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Palefrost, I don't think Hollywood is "starting" to focus more on plot and script-driven movies. For as long as the American movie industry has existed, there has been crap and there has been gold. There are always Oscar contenders and "imdb bottom 100" movies. The question is whether a particular year is gold-covered crap, or crap-covered gold.
     
Loading...

Share This Page