Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Censoring/Suppressing films

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,532 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd be very much pro choice and I think that the film should be allowed to run if people want to see it.

    It is being allowed to run, just some people are protesting about it. People are conflating the idea of a film showing being banned and people protesting about it, but that's the kind of sloppy reasoning that's par for the course around here.


  • Options
    #33
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.

    Sad thing is the cinema will cave and pull the film.


  • Options
    #34
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Joe Loughnane who expected to be elected to the Council in the recent local elections but to his astonishment only got about 300 votes was declaring yesterday that he would prevent the showing from going ahead.
    His Walter Mittyitis is getting worse as time goes by.
    The stupidity and hypocrisy with him and his very small group of adoring acolytes is breathtaking.

    A real little Hitler.

    What gives him the right to decide what can and can't be shown?


  • Options
    #35
    Harvey Weinstein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Harvey Weinstein


    The protesters were attempting to have the film suppressed.
    Slogans on several placards included the phrase "Stop the screening"

    Joe Loughnane explicitly stated that the screening would be stopped saying "Its as simple as this, this film won't be shown in that cinema tonight"

    Others stated that they wanted the screening stopped because it was factually inaccurate
    Others then called for the tearing down of promotional posters.

    Screen-Shot-2019-10-05-at-16-57-53.png
    Screen-Shot-2019-10-05-at-16-58-46.png
    Screen-Shot-2019-10-05-at-17-07-54.png


  • Options
    #36
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Enough is Enough! wrote: »
    Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.

    Sad thing is the cinema will cave and pull the film.

    Not to worry, the intended audience can always get their kicks harassing pregnant women at Holles Street.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    spurious wrote: »
    Not to worry, the intended audience can always get their kicks harassing pregnant women at Holles Street.

    Except the Guards confirmed there has been no harassment.


  • Options
    #38
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »
    Do we really have to go through the difference between the government making it a criminal offence to screen or sell a copy of a film, and protestors protesting and letting a private business make a choice? Like ye're not actually with a straight face and functional brain, saying those things are meaningfully comparable?

    If any of ye have bothered Googling the film that's given ye this weekend's secondhand outrage high, we might want to talk about the difference between satirical films which are clearly and explicitly fictional, and films which are clearly intended as ideological propaganda and which take a deeply contested account of actual events and present it as straight forward true story.

    Why can’t you just let people go and see whatever film they want?


  • Options
    #39
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd be very much pro choice and I think that the film should be allowed to run if people want to see it.

    Of course you do. Because your a normal human being.


  • Options
    #40
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,126 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Enough is Enough! wrote: »
    Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.
    What are 'soiboys'? I'm presuming it is some kind of derogatory term, but I can't find any definition for it.

    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    The protesters were attempting to have the film suppressed.
    Slogans on several placards included the phrase "Stop the screening"
    Though just to be clear, that's a bit different from having the film banned.


  • Options
    #41
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Arghus wrote: »
    They're entitled to protest, as the pro-lifers would be too if it was a different film that had offended them.

    They’re absolutely allowed to protest.
    The problem is, they think that only they are allowed to protest, because people who disagree with them are clearly wrong.
    For example, the people in oughterard were NOT allowed to protest the DP centre.
    But Joe Loughnane CAN protest people going to the cinema.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ok so are they just protesting or actively trying to stop the film being shown?


  • Options
    #43
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,943 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Arghus wrote: »
    It is being allowed to run, just some people are protesting about it. People are conflating the idea of a film showing being banned and people protesting about it, but that's the kind of sloppy reasoning that's par for the course around here.


    That’s not the way I read it. The OP is making a point about the futility of attempted censorship and how it tends to have the opposite of it’s intended effect.

    The people protesting against the showing of the film are doing so because they don’t want the film to be shown. Because of their efforts, the film has gained plenty of publicity and free advertising, and the protesters are seen as the modern day pearl clutchers.

    It’s amusing, because it’s ironic. I don’t think anyone here is actually outraged or incapable of reason.


  • Options
    #44
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What are 'soiboys'? I'm presuming it is some kind of derogatory term, but I can't find any definition for it.



    Though just to be clear, that's a bit different from having the film banned.

    I’ll fight to death for your right to protest. Protest away. But you have to let me protest things I don’t approve of too.
    That’s the problem.


  • Options
    #45
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?


  • Options
    #46
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    ok so are they just protesting or actively trying to stop the film being shown?

    Joe loughnane announced on twitter yesterday that he would see to it that the film would not be shown.


  • Options
    #47
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Boggles wrote: »
    How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?

    There’s demand to see it, otherwise it wouldn’t be economically viable for the cinema to show it.
    Just because it’s something you’re not interested in doesn’t mean other people feel the same.
    This would be clear to me, I’ve no idea why it’s not clear to you.


  • Options
    #48
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,297 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    It's got a better rotten tomatoes rating than the new rambo at least.


  • Options
    #49
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,126 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    splinter65 wrote: »
    I’ll fight to death for your right to protest. Protest away. But you have to let me protest things I don’t approve of too.
    That’s the problem.


    Thanks for your support, but just to be clear, I'm not protesting anything, or calling for protests or encouraging protests on this occasion. Nor have I made any comment about what you should or shouldn't be protesting about.


    Boggles wrote: »
    How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?


    Follow the money.


  • Options
    #50
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Why can’t you just let people go and see whatever film they want?

    Is that a rhetorical question? Nobody is being stopped from seeing any film, because the sector of society who are the exact opposite of the makers and audience of this film campaigned and protested and agitated and won that right. So now, instead of the government and other massively powerful establishments ACTUALLY preventing people seeing a film, here we have protestors objecting to a screening of a film. Objecting, not fining, or prosecuting, or imprisoning anyone for doing so.

    And here we have people so desperate to feel oppressed and censored rather than just left behind by the society they're in, they have to pretend "see look it's the same, who's the real liberals HUH???"

    While, and this really is great, having not seen or heard anything about the background and content of the film. Nope just straight to "help, they're standing outside the cinema, that's censorship!" While unironically accusing the protesters of knee jerk outraged reactions.

    It's comical.


  • Options
    #51
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    what specifically is wrong with the film?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »
    Is that a rhetorical question? Nobody is being stopped from seeing any film, because the sector of society who are the exact opposite of the makers and audience of this film campaigned and protested and agitated and won that right. So now, instead of the government and other massively powerful establishments ACTUALLY preventing people seeing a film, here we have protestors objecting to a screening of a film. Objecting, not fining, or prosecuting, or imprisoning anyone for doing so.

    And here we have people so desperate to feel oppressed and censored rather than just left behind by the society they're in, they have to pretend "see look it's the same, who's the real liberals HUH???"

    While, and this really is great, having not seen or heard anything about the background and content of the film. Nope just straight to "help, they're standing outside the cinema, that's censorship!" While unironically accusing the protesters of knee jerk outraged reactions.

    It's comical.

    And if they succeed in getting the film shut down, that will be ok?


  • Options
    #53
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    what specifically is wrong with the film?

    It's the story of a former planned parenthood employee who became a prolife advocate. She wrote a book, film is based on the book

    I've heard there are some inaccuracies in the depiction of the abortion process and some people take issue with that but I believe most of the outrage I've seen is because it's promoting a prolife message


  • Options
    #54
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Boggles wrote: »
    How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?

    The director has had a couple of films in the past few years that were surprise sleeper hits in the US domestic market (God's not Dead, and God's Not Dead two - and I really feel like they missed a trick on the title for the sequel there), I think before that he did make TV movies for some religious stations.

    I think it's one group of cinemas who are showing it in five locations across the country, so either they're testing the market for it here, were obliged by one of their distributors to screen it, or the owners have an ideological sympathy.

    Can't wait for Unplanned 2 Electric Boogaloo where the abortionist eats the baby and the baby says save me Jesus and then Jesus does and the abortionist is raptured and it's all the Jews fault and it's 100% a true story.

    (Seriously guys do look the bloody thing up before you dig too far in to the hole of defending it, even on principle)


  • Options
    #55
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's the story of a former planned parenthood employee who became a prolife advocate. She wrote a book, film is based on the book

    I've heard there are some inaccuracies in the depiction of the abortion process and some people take issue with that but I believe most of the outrage I've seen is because it's promoting a prolife message
    Inaccuracies? In a film?


  • Options
    #56
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Enough is Enough! wrote: »
    And if they succeed in getting the film shut down, that will be ok?

    How does one do that in this day and age exactly?

    You can stream the blessed thing anywhere, or order the DVD.


  • Options
    #57
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »
    How does one do that in this day and age exactly?

    You can stream the blessed thing anywhere, or order the DVD.

    You argue that the content caused mass offence and get all the platforms to remove said video. They also continue to delete all the mirror uploads from other users, but it's a constant game of whack-a-mole.

    You first must have protests and 'prove' the offence that is caused. Context is no longer relevant.


  • Options
    #58
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »
    How does one do that in this day and age exactly?

    You can stream the blessed thing anywhere, or order the DVD.

    I fully expect the cinema to cave in and have it pulled because some feminists got offended. Would you be so flippant if it were pro life people protesting a pro abortion movie?


  • Options
    #59
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭Enough is Enough!


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    You argue that the content caused mass offence and get all the platforms to remove said video. They also continue to delete all the mirror uploads from other users, but it's a constant game of whack-a-mole.

    You first must have protests and 'prove' the offence that is caused. Context is no longer relevant.

    Happened with the 'Red Pill' movie.


  • Options
    #60
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's the story of a former planned parenthood employee who became a prolife advocate. She wrote a book, film is based on the book

    I've heard there are some inaccuracies in the depiction of the abortion process and some people take issue with that but I believe most of the outrage I've seen is because it's promoting a prolife message

    It's promoting a prolife message by uncritically presenting Abby Johnson's version of her journey. It's a highly contested version, the medical records at the branch of PP where she was working do not support her account, she claims they altered them to discredit her. Different people have given different timelines about when she spoke to them about what, there's a lot of questions over her job performance and whether she might have very reasonably thought it's better to be a reformed abortionist than a fired one.

    I don't think any film with a strongly prolife message would get a great reception in Ireland, but this is a particularly problematic one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »
    Is that a rhetorical question? Nobody is being stopped from seeing any film, because the sector of society who are the exact opposite of the makers and audience of this film campaigned and protested and agitated and won that right. So now, instead of the government and other massively powerful establishments ACTUALLY preventing people seeing a film, here we have protestors objecting to a screening of a film. Objecting, not fining, or prosecuting, or imprisoning anyone for doing so.

    And here we have people so desperate to feel oppressed and censored rather than just left behind by the society they're in, they have to pretend "see look it's the same, who's the real liberals HUH???"

    While, and this really is great, having not seen or heard anything about the background and content of the film. Nope just straight to "help, they're standing outside the cinema, that's censorship!" While unironically accusing the protesters of knee jerk outraged reactions.

    It's comical.

    Nope. Your wrong. The protestors stated objectives were to prevent the cinema from showing the film. To deny people the opportunity to see whatever film they want to see. Why are you supportive of censorship?


Advertisement