Censoring/Suppressing films

AndrewJRenko · 05-10-2019 5:51pm

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

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?

Are there many pro-choice movies being listed in Irish cinemas?

Enough is Enough! · 05-10-2019 5:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are there many pro-abortion movies being listed in Irish cinemas?

I asked would you liberals be happy if people were trying to censor a pro abortion movie. Well?

splinter65 · 05-10-2019 5:55pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Inaccuracies? In a film?

Whatever next?!?!?

splinter65 · 05-10-2019 5:55pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are there many pro-choice movies being listed in Irish cinemas?

Which pro abortion film would you like to see?

AndrewJRenko · 05-10-2019 5:58pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Which pro abortion film would you like to see?

Dunno - give me a few options and I'll see if I can choose one. Are there many pro-choice movies showing in cinemas?

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

I asked would you liberals be happy if people were trying to censor a pro abortion movie. Well?

And I asked if there were many pro-choice movies out there to be censored, just to understand how realistic or otherwise your scenario is.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-10-2019 5:59pm

splinter65 wrote: »

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?

With all due respect splinter (and I really really mean that) it's a bad use of my time to explain the same thing to you in simpler and terms and have you just repeat back at me the buzz phrases you've decided on for this particular thread. If you don't see the difference between censorship and protest, I don't have the time or qualifications to go through it 19 times.

One eyed Jack · 05-10-2019 5:59pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

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.

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

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

I don’t actually care about the movie itself, I’m amused by the protesters picketing the cinema though. It’s straight out of Father Ted!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-10-2019 6:01pm

I'm struck by the way people are being polite enough to refer to this as a prolife film and for their trouble getting asked what pro abortion film they'd like to see. That's nice.

Enough is Enough! · 05-10-2019 6:07pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

I'm struck by the way people are being polite enough to refer to this as a prolife film and for their trouble getting asked what pro abortion film they'd like to see. That's nice.

We're all struck by your hypocrisy too.

splinter65 · 05-10-2019 6:07pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

With all due respect splinter (and I really really mean that) it's a bad use of my time to explain the same thing to you in simpler and terms and have you just repeat back at me the buzz phrases you've decided on for this particular thread. If you don't see the difference between censorship and protest, I don't have the time or qualifications to go through it 19 times.

Protest is allowing the cinema to show the film and allowing the customers to choose the film but demonstrating your disapproval of the film with placards and some noise.
The objective of this group yesterday was to prevent the film being shown.
They made their objective clear earlier.
I really don’t care how many times you try to pretend that that’s not what was happening because you can convince yourself if you like but I know that taking the choice away is censorship .
It’s laughable, and you know it.

splinter65 · 05-10-2019 6:14pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

I'm struck by the way people are being polite enough to refer to this as a prolife film and for their trouble getting asked what pro abortion film they'd like to see. That's nice.

Ok what pro choice film are the anti choicers objecting to?

AndrewJRenko · 05-10-2019 6:15pm

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

We're all struck by your hypocrisy too.

When were you appointed as a spokesperson for 'us all'?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-10-2019 6:17pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Protest is allowing the cinema to show the film and allowing the customers to choose the film but demonstrating your disapproval of the film with placards and some noise.
The objective of this group yesterday was to prevent the film being shown.
They made their objective clear earlier.
I really don’t care how many times you try to pretend that that’s not what was happening because you can convince yourself if you like but I know that taking the choice away is censorship .
It’s laughable, and you know it.

They are letting a private business make an informed decision on whether they think it's in their own interests to screen a film by making it be known they don't want the film shown.

Even if they succeeded, that's still not stopping people who want to see it from seeing it.

And even if yiz are no pretending nobody was directly comparing this to actual censorship, the OP is there for everyone to read where that's literally the argument being agreed with.

That TD or councillor or whoever's he is seems like a right prick though.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-10-2019 6:25pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t actually care about the movie itself, I’m amused by the protesters picketing the cinema though. It’s straight out of Father Ted!

It is rather a nice lighthearted change of tone from people thrusting infants' coffins in people's faces and posting death threats to people I guess. Y'know, legitimate protest.

One eyed Jack · 05-10-2019 6:29pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

They are letting a private business make an informed decision on whether they think it's in their own interests to screen a film by making it be known they don't want the film shown.

Even if they succeeded, that's still not stopping people who want to see it from seeing it.

And even if yiz are no pretending nobody was directly comparing this to actual censorship, the OP is there for everyone to read where that's literally the argument being agreed with.

That TD or councillor or whoever's he is seems like a right prick though.

They aren’t “letting” anyone do shìt, they’re trying to shame the proprietors of the cinema into capitulating to their demands. They’re basically embarrassing themselves, and yes, I know - they don’t think they’re embarrassing themselves, they’re on the side of good and moral righteousness :rolleyes:

The opening post is there for all to see where the OP uses the example of attempted censorship by the Catholic Church, and we know how that worked out for them, and this crowd, and it appears to be going exactly the same way for them - attempted censorship has only ever increased anything’s popularity and elevated it to cult status.

TheRepentent · 05-10-2019 6:29pm

The movie really sounds sh1te and I'm sure the ani-choicers will lap it up and enjoy watching it while crying into their popcorn that they no longer have control over other peoples bodies but not so sure whats the point of protesting outside the cinema...

One eyed Jack · 05-10-2019 6:32pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

It is rather a nice lighthearted change of tone from people thrusting infants' coffins in people's faces and posting death threats to people I guess. Y'know, legitimate protest.

Hold my beer...

eviltwin · 05-10-2019 6:33pm

My main issue with the film is when it eventually gets a dvd release and they start showing it in schools.

The people going to the cinema to see it are making that choice and it's none of anyone else's business. Cinema chains will show what they are going to get a return on.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-10-2019 6:35pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They aren’t “letting” anyone do shìt, they’re trying to shame the proprietors of the cinema into capitulating to their demands. They’re basically embarrassing themselves, and yes, I know - they don’t think they’re embarrassing themselves, they’re on the side of good and moral righteousness :rolleyes:

The opening post is there for all to see where the OP uses the example of attempted censorship by the Catholic Church, and we know how that worked out for them, and this crowd, and it appears to be going exactly the same way for them - attempted censorship has only ever increased anything’s popularity and elevated it to cult status.

They're not going to capitulate out of shame, if they capitulate it'll be profit driven as we all well know.

If the market is there for this to be financially successful, it'll be screened, that's what's happened with this director's films in the US and that's why they're now being screened here. If they get the impression the negative publicity will make it unprofitable to screen it, they won't.

You're reading an awful lot into that OP bud. Maybe OP will come back and clarify or maybe he'll do his usual disappearing act and it can continue to be all things to all people.

suicide_circus · 05-10-2019 6:45pm

eviltwin wrote: »

My main issue with the film is when it eventually gets a dvd release and they start showing it in schools.

The people going to the cinema to see it are making that choice and it's none of anyone else's business. Cinema chains will show what they are going to get a return on.

who is going to show it in schools?

One eyed Jack · 05-10-2019 6:57pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

They're not going to capitulate out of shame, if they capitulate it'll be profit driven as we all well know.

If the market is there for this to be financially successful, it'll be screened, that's what's happened with this director's films in the US and that's why they're now being screened here. If they get the impression the negative publicity will make it unprofitable to screen it, they won't.

The protesters tried to have the cinema capitulate to their demands, but all they’ve done is given the film publicity it hasn’t earned. I do get what you mean about special interest groups in the US putting out the feelers for the market for this stuff in Ireland, but it wasn’t blowing up on the Internet before the protesters gave it the publicity they did.

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

You're reading an awful lot into that OP bud. Maybe OP will come back and clarify or maybe he'll do his usual disappearing act and it can continue to be all things to all people.

I’m really not reading anything into the opening post that isn’t there -

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are we back to this now? Is was not so long ago that Catholic groups in Ireland attempted to ban or suppress films, The Life of Brian being one example.
It seems we've come full circle in this regard.

If I were reading anything into the OP, I’d have pointed out that Harvey Weinstein complaining about film censorship is almost too much, but expecting he’ll be back any time soon to explain himself? If Jesus makes an appearance in the thread, I’ll have to be hospitalised :pac:

Harvey Weinstein · 05-10-2019 7:21pm

In fairness the thread title is inaccurate. I can't figure out how to change it. It should read censorship/suppression
Rather than 'banning'
The bottom line is though that these people are attempting to coerce and shame the cinema into dropping and effectively censoring the film. A film which people obviously want to see and thus earn the business some revenue. If this film was not predicted to earn they would not have shown it because as others have said its more in line with a straight to dvd film rather than a cinema release.

And the comparison with Catholic groups back in the day is valid.

Harvey Weinstein · 05-10-2019 7:26pm

There's no 'outrage' from me, just concern at the direction we are heading. Like I said we have had already enough of this type of censorious behaviour in Ireland let's not go back to it.

hetuzozaho · 05-10-2019 7:42pm

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

There's no 'outrage' from me, just concern at the direction we are heading. Like I said we have had already enough of this type of censorious behaviour in Ireland let's not go back to it.

What's your plan, to censor protesters instead?

One eyed Jack · 05-10-2019 7:46pm

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

There's no 'outrage' from me, just concern at the direction we are heading. Like I said we have had already enough of this type of censorious behaviour in Ireland let's not go back to it.

Ahh no I didn’t mean outrage from you specifically, I mean special interest groups who know full well how profitable manufactured outrage is. Just look at the shìte that’s emanating from Hollywood - seems to be less about making a movie people want to watch, and more about making a movie that people won’t want people to watch! The latest example of course is Joker.

Protesting the film in the OP is just silly IMO, and the “protest” isn’t any reason to start thinking we’re back to anything we never moved away from in the first place. Spotlight was the same sort of craic, I didn’t give a shìte for factual accuracy any more than I wouldn’t give a shìte for factual accuracy in this particular case. I’d take it as a given that it’s “inspired by real events” :rolleyes:

Harvey Weinstein · 05-10-2019 7:47pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What's your plan, to censor protesters instead?

I don't have a plan, it's possible to discuss a matter without wishing to take any kind of direct action on it.
I don't want anyone[I[/I]to be censored that's the point.
The issue here is not that people are protesting it's that some of them are attempting to suppress the film in order that people cannot see it. Big difference

AndrewJRenko · 05-10-2019 7:47pm

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

If the market is there for this to be financially successful, it'll be screened, that's what's happened with this director's films in the US and that's why they're now being screened here.

The financial aspect is interesting. Surely it is very, very unusual to have any documentary like this on in a cinema. The only documentaries getting cinema releases in recent years that I can recall would be the Michael Moore ones or Inconvenient Truth - involving VERY big names, which this one doesn't.

I'd be very interested to know whether there is some financial backing out there to 'support' this moving coming to cinemas. And if so, where is this financial backing coming from.

Harvey Weinstein · 05-10-2019 7:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The financial aspect is interesting. Surely it is very, very unusual to have any documentary like this on in a cinema. The only documentaries getting cinema releases in recent years that I can recall would be the Michael Moore ones or Inconvenient Truth - involving VERY big names, which this one doesn't.

I'd be very interested to know whether there is some financial backing out there to 'support' this moving coming to cinemas. And if so, where is this financial backing coming from.

I don't have the facts but Id say there's no doubt that the production and distribution are financed by pro life groups but there's nothing wrong with that in any case.

suicide_circus · 05-10-2019 7:53pm

Plenty of topics get the unflattering True Story movie treatment. Dont see why this should be any different.

TheRepentent · 05-10-2019 8:09pm

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anti-abortion-movie-unplanned-finds-theatrical-distributor-1181317

Ah never knew they were responisble for Gods nots dead and it's even better sequel God's not dead 2:p:pac::pac:

Censoring/Suppressing films

Comments