Theater bans Gone With The Wind for being "Insensitive"

[Frozen]

20 minutes ago, DAR said:

Everyone knows Hannibal is about one thing....family

 

 

That would actually be interesting. 

[CoolioD1]

i've said here a few times that if i had one wish for hollywood to make any movie it would be a hannibal movie. but every time vin diesel talks about doing a 300-esque version of it...

 

[Rorschach]

*Comes to BOT hoping to escape all the political noise

*Finds this thread

 

[Rorschach]

40 minutes ago, DAR said:

Everyone knows Hannibal is about one thing....family

 

[DeeCee]

3 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

Funnily enough, this is actually a pitch-perfect argument for why we do need more diversity in films and portrayals. Why? Because there were black people and people of other races in Medieval Europe. Loads of them. Traders, workers, even a few minor nobles and knights here and there. They're not exactly pushed front and center in the history books, but they were there.

 

So how come nobody ever brings them up? Well, it's quite simple. The major reason that the general view of Medieval Europe as being whites only is because almost every piece of media produced about said era chooses to portray it as being whites only. Which is kinda the problem.

 

 

 

Already covered.

 

 

[cookie]

1 hour ago, DAR said:

Everyone knows Hannibal is about one thing....family

 

I will only accept this if the movie has rocket elephants.

 

If there's one thing Medieval II: Total War taught me is that rocket elephants > everything.

[Incarnadine]

Wow. When I started this thread I honestly thought there would be maybe 1 or 2 pages of discussion about censorship and where things are headed once you start.

Personally, I'm not particularly fond of GWTW, but not for most of the reasons being touched on in this thread, rather it was simply before my time and doesn't really resonate with me, which is true of a lot of older movies.

Still, much like controversial books that have been banned like Huckleberry Finn or Catcher In The Rye, which I pretty much have the same feelings as GWTW and for similar reasons, I can recognize them as classics from a different era, which shouldn't be entirely judged by today's mores and standards.

Once you start censoring past works because they don't conform to modern sensitivities  all you will end up with is the blandest non-controversial lowest common denominator "entertainment".

 

 

[vc2002]

59 minutes ago, Rorschach said:

*Comes to BOT hoping to escape all the political noise

*Finds this thread

 

 

[RobinHood26]

Im sorry but this is fucking Bullshit and any of you defending it are sad movie fans.

 

 

If you want Gone with the Wind banned now then I don't care what you say your voting for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARC to be banned in 30 years. Shut up you are. No joke, my best friend is Persian and he had Never seen it so I had to show him and he hated it, thought it was beyond racist how it treated "Arabs".   In 30 years when muslims tell the PC world they don't want to see that anymore. They don't want to be seen as rats, or insects, or mindless hords, or brains the size of child - what my friend said.  

 

 

How about in 50 years we ban all 80s action movies. Have you guys fucking Seen Tango and Cash? Or Cobra?   Kurt Russell in T&C and Stallone in Cobra or any action movie by today standards the dumbest, stupidest, most trump voting, asshole, racist, gun loving, all criminals deserve to die, characters. And they were lovable likable leads of the era....

 

When i watch it I go damn, this would never be made today, or this would never fly with the politics of the day, and its almost painful and awkward how backwwards some of the themes and ideas are, its crazy to me, almost disturbing. If I showed those movies to a 22 years old Snow flake (I'm a liberal haha) she would ban them from her house, her children, find a local theater playing it and harass them. 

 

Guess what its fucking movie and its a product of its time. If you cant accept that YOU are the problem. If affends you don't fucking watch it, you don't need to stop  other people from watching it. Thats the most selfish stupidest thing ever, this isn't a fucking movie not a propaganda brain wash video telling white people to go murder minorities. Watch 70s movies and guess what you'll find out the styles, cultures, politics , ideals, and aspirations of the time. Will they line up with today or the future of course not. thats kinda the point. 

 

Should we ban  books in the library now too? Forget it happened, burn them all? Erase history?

 

 

A huge reason I devoted my life to film was because of a films immortally. It lives forever, but I'm afraid now I realize that will never be true. 

 

 

How about we ban all films that have white actors playing mexicans? or Asian? Lets just loose all our classic westerns.  Whats next, you know what this movie treat woman like basically whores, there is no actually female character that does anything , lets ban it? Why not I can see it happening in a few years at this point. 

 

 

Honestly this is the first step of our culture turning into a world where we back track and end up banning anything that offends anyone. Im telling you, hardened censors, movies cant talk about these subjects, You cant buy these movies here, do you wanna be China? this is the opposite end of the whole Neo Nazi shit and it can actually lead us in a very similar situation believe it or not. This is an easy and very realistic way we end up in a "perfect Utopia" ... in reality is never truly obtainable and it will really be fucking Brave New World or any YA novel  come to life, Im sorry but this is the first step toward dystopian society. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Jay Hollywood

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Nobody is saying that Gone with the Wind should be banned. But there is nothing wrong with a theater backing out from showing it. It was the owners decision not show it. The government is not telling the theater to shut it. Business should have the freedom to choose what they want to show or not to show. I am not worried about everything being banned.  I People have been trying to ban books for over 100 years.   I believe there are no books banned in the United States. The last book ( John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure  aka Fancy Hill) that was tried to be banned was in 1963 but the Supreme Court over ruled the ban in 1963.  I believe there are no films banned in the United States. Death of a President had Geoge W. Bush being assassinated in 2006 and was shown in theaters. Cinemark and Regal refused to show the movie. But that was there decision.

[RobinHood26]

37 minutes ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

Nobody is saying that Gone with the Wind should be banned. But there is nothing wrong with a theater backing out from showing it. 

This is pure FALSE though. The theater didn't ban the movie. The PEOPLE DID. They Said hey, this is a film I have NO desire to watch and don't want too, but I'm a whinny little fuck and  I don't think ANYBODY else should have the right to see it..... Im going to stop going here if you play this. You're going to loose a valued costumer. 

 

Im sorry but in what world is nobody saying Gone with the Wind should be ban?!? How do you think it got BANNED! 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Jay Hollywood

[vc2002]

1 hour ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Honestly this is the first step of our culture turning into a world where we back track and end up banning anything that offends anyone. Im telling you, hardened censors, movies cant talk about these subjects, You cant buy these movies here, do you wanna be China? this is the opposite end of the whole Neo Nazi shit and it can actually lead us in a very similar situation believe it or not. This is an easy and very realistic way we end up in a "perfect Utopia" ... in reality is never truly obtainable and it will really be fucking Brave New World or any YA novel  come to life, Im sorry but this is the first step toward dystopian society.

 

 

The recent frenzy caused by the Unite the Right rally does remind me a little bit of the Cultural Revolution madness happened in China during 1966-1976.

 

[George Parr]

Isn't it kind of odd how some people go on huge rants about "stuff getting banned" and "slippery slopes" yet at the same time whine about "political correctness going too far"?

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, while complaining that others make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

The whole idea is already absurd. One theater has decided that it won't play Gone with the Wind anymore. One theater!

This theater is a private entity, an entity that is perfectly within its right to show the movies it wants to show, and not to show the movies it doesn't want to show.

 

There is no ban on anything. Whether the theater has the best reason to stop showing a movie or not is entirely irrelevant. It could be an utterly stupid one, and it still wouldn't matter. A ban is carried out by the country, and no such ban exists. People should be far more worried about the absurd theories that certain politicians try to get taught at schools nowadays, theories that teach a false history of the nation and humanity as a whole, even trying not to teach critical thinking skills, thus causing citizens to be dumber than they should be.

 

And all that doesn't even have anything to do with the completely absurd idea that removing statues - statues that were only build to celebrate racism - somehow "deletes history". There is literally no connection between removing these statues and remembering history. There are no statues celebrating Nazism in Germany anymore, yet you can bet that if there is one thing that will always be remembered in Germany, it is how evil the Nazis were. They also toppled a ton of Soviet statues in eastern european countries that had to live under Soviet domination, yet none of these countries forget the Soviet oppression they endured.

To make matters worse, is that there are still people who believe that the Civil War was not about slavery. The "states rights" excuse is nothing but a joke. There are various documents from the seceeding states, all clearly outlining their reasoning for why they are leaving the union. Go and read them, count how often they talk about slavery and how often states rights get mentioned. There are a whole bunch of factors that played into a war breaking out, but the deciding factor and by far teh biggest reason why the South seceeded, was because of slavery. Stating otherwise is nothing but an attempt to whitewash history.

 

 

Even if there were country-wide bans for a movie, freaking out over the concept of bans itself doesn't do anything good. The whole idea that free speech needs to be absolute (which it isn't even in the US) or a nation will be doomed to end in authoritarian regime is absurd to say the least. It is far more important to protect the dignity of humans, to not allow people having to live in fear because others can openly demand their removal just because they are different. And yes, banning hate-speech is effective. You don't just end up with people on the fringes, you drastically reduce their means to spread their vile garbage onto others. Protecting hate-speech just allows groups to openly support these views, to influence people and politicians, to get them to change politics to their advantage, even just in subtle ways that doesn't scream "here's a bunch of racist stuff we will implement". Protecting hate-speech means the country has no means to defend itself against people trying to undermine the democratic principles of the nation itself. It's the difference between allowing parties to actively aim to remove the democratic principles the country is based on, or protecting these values. The difference between the Weimar Republic and its various anti-democratic parties that openly despised democracy and tried to undermine or even remove it, and the current Federal Republic of Germany, which protects the democracy and constitution by not allowing parties that openly aim to remove this foundation the country is based on.

 

Having some limits on free speech is not, in any way, shape or form, a threat to democracy. On the contrary, it can help protect it, and it can help protect people and groups who otherwise had to live with people constantly attacking their dignity. I for one most definately wouldn't want my country to allow people to openly celebrate the Nazis or let people get away with telling Jews that it is a shame they or their ancestors didn't die in the holocaust. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by allowing these kind of attacks.

[baumer]

Getting rid of a movie because of its topic is the biggest SWJ bullshit agenda crap that should never happen. Whats next? Banning films from the 70s and 80s that used homophobic slurs? This is getting out of control.

[ban768]

1 hour ago, George Parr said:

Isn't it kind of odd how some people go on huge rants about "stuff getting banned" and "slippery slopes" yet at the same time whine about "political correctness going too far"?

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, while complaining that others make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

The whole idea is already absurd. One theater has decided that it won't play Gone with the Wind anymore. One theater!

This theater is a private entity, an entity that is perfectly within its right to show the movies it wants to show, and not to show the movies it doesn't want to show.

 

There is no ban on anything. Whether the theater has the best reason to stop showing a movie or not is entirely irrelevant. It could be an utterly stupid one, and it still wouldn't matter. A ban is carried out by the country, and no such ban exists. People should be far more worried about the absurd theories that certain politicians try to get taught at schools nowadays, theories that teach a false history of the nation and humanity as a whole, even trying not to teach critical thinking skills, thus causing citizens to be dumber than they should be.

 

And all that doesn't even have anything to do with the completely absurd idea that removing statues - statues that were only build to celebrate racism - somehow "deletes history". There is literally no connection between removing these statues and remembering history. There are no statues celebrating Nazism in Germany anymore, yet you can bet that if there is one thing that will always be remembered in Germany, it is how evil the Nazis were. They also toppled a ton of Soviet statues in eastern european countries that had to live under Soviet domination, yet none of these countries forget the Soviet oppression they endured.

To make matters worse, is that there are still people who believe that the Civil War was not about slavery. The "states rights" excuse is nothing but a joke. There are various documents from the seceeding states, all clearly outlining their reasoning for why they are leaving the union. Go and read them, count how often they talk about slavery and how often states rights get mentioned. There are a whole bunch of factors that played into a war breaking out, but the deciding factor and by far teh biggest reason why the South seceeded, was because of slavery. Stating otherwise is nothing but an attempt to whitewash history.

 

 

Even if there were country-wide bans for a movie, freaking out over the concept of bans itself doesn't do anything good. The whole idea that free speech needs to be absolute (which it isn't even in the US) or a nation will be doomed to end in authoritarian regime is absurd to say the least. It is far more important to protect the dignity of humans, to not allow people having to live in fear because others can openly demand their removal just because they are different. And yes, banning hate-speech is effective. You don't just end up with people on the fringes, you drastically reduce their means to spread their vile garbage onto others. Protecting hate-speech just allows groups to openly support these views, to influence people and politicians, to get them to change politics to their advantage, even just in subtle ways that doesn't scream "here's a bunch of racist stuff we will implement". Protecting hate-speech means the country has no means to defend itself against people trying to undermine the democratic principles of the nation itself. It's the difference between allowing parties to actively aim to remove the democratic principles the country is based on, or protecting these values. The difference between the Weimar Republic and its various anti-democratic parties that openly despised democracy and tried to undermine or even remove it, and the current Federal Republic of Germany, which protects the democracy and constitution by not allowing parties that openly aim to remove this foundation the country is based on.

 

Having some limits on free speech is not, in any way, shape or form, a threat to democracy. On the contrary, it can help protect it, and it can help protect people and groups who otherwise had to live with people constantly attacking their dignity. I for one most definately wouldn't want my country to allow people to openly celebrate the Nazis or let people get away with telling Jews that it is a shame they or their ancestors didn't die in the holocaust. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by allowing these kind of attacks.

All I have to say is you do know that the reason why we have the first amendment in this country is to mainly protect the speech that we don't like. What is the point of even having free speech if we only allow the people we agree with to voice their opinion openly and freely?

[FantasticBeasts]

I wonder If any of you have watched this. I find it to be exaggeratory but I agree with the point it is trying to make.

Edited August 28, 2017 by FantasticBeasts

[grey ghost]

Again, free speech means the government can't stop free expression.

 

Theater owners can play a neo confederate or communist marathon if they want. It's their choice.

 

The theater owner made a choice. Maybe it was political. Maybe it was a business choice. The point is he or she was free to do as they choose.

 

I love The Matrix but if a mass shooting made a theater owner pull a screening I wouldn't blame liberals or say my civil liberties were violated.

 

The theater owner is free to make that choice.

 

I'm free to protest, complain or open my own theater.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by grey ghost

[grey ghost]

Also kudos to OP for the provocative language in the thread title.

 

"Theater owner chooses not to show movie due to personal political views" would've gotten far less hits. 

[a2k]

Breakfast at Tiffany's had horrible Japanese stereotyping. Temple of Doom monkey skull non-sense among other things is also goes low and is rubbish. Nitpicking more, the only African American voices I clearly remember in TLK are the very badly stereotyped voices of the hyenas. Now these things don't compare to romanticizing slavery, but in the end GWTW is based off a book (on sale everywhere in the world), and is technically magnificent.  Don't let public institutions screen the viewings but other-wise banning it is over the top I think. 

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, grey ghost said:

Again, free speech means the government can't stop free expression.

 

Theater owners can play a neo confederate or communist marathon if they want. It's their choice.

 

The theater owner made a choice. Maybe it was political. Maybe it was a business choice. The point is he or she was free to do as they choose.

 

I love The Matrix but if a mass shooting made a theater owner pull a screening I wouldn't blame liberals or say my civil liberties were violated.

 

The theater owner is free to make that choice.

 

I'm free to protest, complain or open my own theater.

 

 

The bolded sentence is something Americans tend to mix up, free speech does not mean the government can't stop free expression, you are talking about the American first amendement not the universal concept/united nation concept of free speech.

 

Freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium usedFreedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

 

Societal sanction, societal censorship can obviously impair on free speech not just government, the first amendement protect you well for the later not the former but the constitution is not a dictionary defining what free speech is or is not.

 

You say free to choose, free from governmental consequence, but not free from fear of societal consequence, pressure was put (any form of pressure reduce freedom, by very definition that is how humans work)

Edited August 28, 2017 by Barnack