NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm ripping this off wholesale from the blog TBogg (http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/no-gay-sex-please-were-mormon-take-hot.html)

Seems the owner of the Utah Jazz basketball team, Larry Miller, owns a cineplex in Salt Lake City, and the cineplex was scheduled to show the film "Brokeback Mountain," aka, the gay cowboy movie. They abruptly cancelled the showing--as is their right. I don't want anyone thinking I'm jumping down the throats of the people who decided not to show the film--there's no law that says they have to show it, although I think it's a financial mistake.

A digression--here's why it's a mistake. Salt Lake City is not so conservative as you might assume. It's got a Democratic mayor, and like any sizable city with more than one university, has a sizable enough gay-friendly population that I'm fairly sure the theater wouldn't have lost money. (My borther in law used to live there, and a close friend does right now.)

So back to the story at hand. Here's TBogg's take on it.
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.

“I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show,” she said.
Okay. Here is Gayle Ruzicka:
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/145/1296/400/utaheagle.jpg
And here is Jake Gyllenhaal:
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/145/1296/400/jake.jpg
As I have said before, I'm as hetero as the next guy (providing of course that he's, you know, also hetero) but I'm not that hetero...
Yeah, that's a no-brainer.

Take the poll.

I'm with Darko!

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved

----------------------------------------------------------------

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://localhost:10141/hello/145/1296/400/utaheagle.jpg

The following error was encountered:

Access Denied.
Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect.

I don't know why they're so worried.

It was proven in the "Cabaret Experiment" that the beams of homosexuality-inducing energy (or "gay-diation") that fire out of moviescreens showing films that depict gay people will only turn a man gay if he already likes to chug wang beforehand.

You're right, no-brainer. Anyone who thought male heterosexuality means girls over guys always should see the error of their ways after this question.

Last weekend it averaged $11,904 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=brokebackmountain.htm) per screen. In its fifth week. Hostel managed $9,157 on opening weekend and isn't likely to maintain that in the way Brokeback is still increasing business. The only other film with numbers like that is Cache(Hidden) with $14,420 on 5 screens. Never heard of it, so I wonder what the deal is.

Sorry, got in a mode there.

The short story is, bad business decission for a little touch of homophobia...

I don't know why they're so worried.

It was proven in the "Cabaret Experiment" that the beams of homosexuality-inducing energy (or "gay-diation") that fire out of moviescreens showing films that depict gay people will only turn a man gay if he already likes to chug wang beforehand.
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/images/smilies/rockon.gif

Oh, the Mormons should talk. Polygamy, anyone?

I don't know why they're so worried.

It was proven in the "Cabaret Experiment" that the beams of homosexuality-inducing energy (or "gay-diation") that fire out of moviescreens showing films that depict gay people will only turn a man gay if he already likes to chug wang beforehand.
That's pretty fucking funny.

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/images/smilies/rockon.gif

You're getting pretty good use out of that.

You're getting pretty good use out of that.
Meh, if Eutrusca can use that fish wack one on every other post I can use the headbanger three times.

I don't know why they're so worried.

It was proven in the "Cabaret Experiment" that the beams of homosexuality-inducing energy (or "gay-diation") that fire out of moviescreens showing films that depict gay people will only turn a man gay if he already likes to chug wang beforehand.

YAY! :D

Meh, if Eutrusca can use that fish wack one on every other post I can use the headbanger three times.

I'm not complaining. Yours is a lot cuter.

Errmm, I voted "Gayle Ruzicka" for my poison choice because I suppose I interpreted the question wrongly. If you were asking who I thought was "zomg teh sexz0r" then that means Jake Gyllehaal. I also support him more than that hag of a woman.

And why does Mormonism have anything to do with your topic title? Sure, Utah is predominantly Mormon (or so I believe), and there's a good chance that might have something to do with it, but I live in Louisiana (Shreveport, to be precise) and they probably aren't showing it here because the area is so conservative. (Yes, I hatessss it)

So yeah, I think it's stupid the guy cancelled the showing, and I think it's stupid that Gayle Ruzicka thinks the right message is being sent to "young people" as if young people choose to be gay. Idiocy.

For the record, I must say that I have talked to a couple of Mormons and they seemed to be totally fine with my homosexuality. So ermm..that will be all.

Errmm, I voted "Gayle Ruzicka" for my poison choice because I suppose I interpreted the question wrongly. If you were asking who I thought was "zomg teh sexz0r" then that means Jake Gyllehaal. I also support him more than that hag of a woman.
Hell, I'm just happy that I'm not the only one voting for me being a sick fuck anymore. :D

For the record, I must say that I have talked to a couple of Mormons and they seemed to be totally fine with my homosexuality. So ermm..that will be all.I can only think of one Mormon who wasn't gay to whom I ever even implied I was gay, and that's because she said she did karaoke at gay bars.

As for Jake, if he didn't have a hairy chest, I'd be all over him in my gutter-minded world. :p

As for Jake, if he didn't have a hairy chest, I'd be all over him in my gutter-minded world. :p

Shut yo' mouth! Hairy chests are hotness.

Hell, I'm just happy that I'm not the only one voting for me being a sick fuck anymore. :D
alas, I could only choose one option. Rest assured, you're a sick fuck...but that is eclipsed by my mild man crush on Jake Gyllehaal. Oh, and the fact that that woman appears to have cooked herself in a tanning bed for the better part of a millenia

Oh, the Mormons should talk. Polygamy, anyone?

Not any more, thanks all the same.

As to the original post, I can't actually see what the question is (possibly the fact that both pictures show up as the little 'Sorry, don't want to show you that' red crosses), but I'll throw in a bit of support on the digression: I've heard from someone in Utah that the Mormon population of SLC is below 40% these days. She's not very happy with how 'liberal' the city is.

Just thought I'd say.

Screw em theyre just mad becuase Jesus was gay.

Screw em theyre just mad becuase Jesus was gay.
He did seem to prefer the company of men.

And "Fishing for men?" I mean, come on...

He did seem to prefer the company of men.

And "Fishing for men?" I mean, come on...


Well the catholics actually like the idea of a gay Jesus, it seems.

After all, suggest to one that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene.

They dont like that.

Ergo, they must prefer a poofy messiah.

Well the catholics actually like the idea of a gay Jesus, it seems.

After all, suggest to one that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene.

They dont like that.

Ergo, they must prefer a poofy messiah.
Well, you know how 'loose women' like having gay dude friends to 'dish' with...

Well, you know how 'loose women' like having gay dude friends to 'dish' with...
Ooooh, you're going to hell for that one. :D

I do like a good gay porno...

Screw em theyre just mad becuase Jesus was gay.

"And yea, the Lord, Light in the Loafers, and also called the Son of Man, into Man on Man, shall be, forever, the Messiah in a Miata"

-From the lost testament of Thomas the Pterodactyl Apostle

Just sharing what I found on PVPonline.com enjoy.


10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

http://adamnieman.co.uk/posters/father_ted.jpg



First thing that comes into my head when somebody says "boycott".

http://adamnieman.co.uk/posters/father_ted.jpg



First thing that comes into my head when somebody says "boycott".
I fucking love Father Ted. :D

although I think it's a financial mistake.

Doubtful, the movie bombed and if the amount of screens was limited they probably made more money somewhere else.

Doubtful, the movie bombed and if the amount of screens was limited they probably made more money somewhere else.
By what measure has the film bombed? This doesn't sound like a bomb to me. (http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1979&p=.htm)
Despite the Utah slight, Brokeback Mountain rode into about 80 more markets over the weekend and roped $5.7 million. At 483 theaters, the movie averaged a bustling $11,856 per site, and the total sits at $22.4 million after 31 days of limited release. Its production budget was $14 million.
It's no King Kong, but considering the small budget and the fact that the makers haven't spent a single penny in television advertising, I'd say the film has been a smashing success, especially in per screen average. As the article I linked above notes, the theaters that have shown the film are making money hand over fist.

By what measure has the film bombed? This doesn't sound like a bomb to me. (http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1979&p=.htm)

It's no King Kong, but considering the small budget and the fact that the makers haven't spent a single penny in television advertising, I'd say the film has been a smashing success, especially in per screen average. As the article I linked above notes, the theaters that have shown the film are making money hand over fist.
Thanks man, I was getting tired of having to lay that out to people...

Thanks man, I was getting tired of having to lay that out to people...
Well, I can see where the assumption comes from--the idea in recent years has been that unless a movie makes over a hundred million at the box office, it's a financial failure. What most people don't get is that some of those hundred million dollar films actually lose money, while a film like Brokeback Mountain, if it makes $50 million, will make some producers and distributors very, very happy. It's all about seeing things in context.

Well, I can see where the assumption comes from--the idea in recent years has been that unless a movie makes over a hundred million at the box office, it's a financial failure. What most people don't get is that some of those hundred million dollar films actually lose money, while a film like Brokeback Mountain, if it makes $50 million, will make some producers and distributors very, very happy. It's all about seeing things in context.
People forget that that is the 'blockbuster' mark. What they also fail to consider is that there is more than one way to that mark. In the other thread on someone bitching about the movie I pointed to two movies that worked their way up from limited release to huge returns, one over $200 million. The other became the second highest grossing film of its kind. The way this movie is growing, and the likely boost that the almost assured Oscar nominations that it will get, the movie is well on its path to a long, healthy run that will at the very least come very close to the $100 million mark. If you could buy stock in movies that have already started thier run, this would be a sure bet.