There is the bigger issue of not having your contract renewed. i.e. the distributor may decide not to do business with you in the future, and if that distributor releases next years blockbuster, you may have put your theatre into second run hell. If you are a franchise operation for a national chain, you could see your franchise license not renewed. If I were a local theatre owner, I’d be more concerned about the next contract than this one.
I can’t see a film about gay cowboys being a big hit right in the heart of Mormon country regardless of this single theatre’s actions. I don’t think there’s really a need for theatre owners to refuse to show this movie… Devout Mormons would just avoid the film anyhow. Maybe the theatre owner has decided that since it’s a movie his local audience won’t be overly interested in it makes more financial sense to have a different movie playing. I have a feeling no theatre owner out there likes playing movies to an empty house.
By comparison, does anyone know which other movies are playing at this theatre? Is Bloodrayne being shown? How about Hostel? Plenty of unwholesomeness in those films but it’s the violent kind rather than the sexual kind. If the theatre owner doesn’t show Brokeback Mountain but does show Hostel I’d call him the worst kind of hypocrite. But I have a feeling it’s more about butts in seats rather than butts on screen.
Why would you call him a hypocrite? So far, all I’ve seen is that the man’s basically bowing to community pressure. Perhaps you should call the pressure group hypocrites. As you said, it’s probably about filling the seats and the man’s only interest is ensuring his income.
According to the IMDB, the following movies are playing at the Megaplex 17 in Sandy, Utah (bolding mine):
[ul][li]Casanova ®[/li][li]Cheaper by the Dozen (PG)[/li][li]Désolation magnifique: Marcher sur la Lune (Unrated)[/li][li]Fun With Dick & Jane (PG-13)[/li][li]Grandma’s Boy ®[/li][li]Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (PG-13)[/li][li]Hostel ®[/li][li]King Kong (PG-13)[/li][li]Memoirs of a Geisha (PG-13)[/li][li]Munich ®[/li][li]Rumor Has It… (PG-13)[/li][li]Syriana ®[/li][li]The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (PG)[/li][li]The Family Stone (PG-13)[/li][li]The Magic of Flight (Unrated)[/li][li]The Producers (PG-13)[/li][li]The Ringer (PG-13)[/ul][/li]
BTW, devout Mormons usually don’t attend R movies anyway.
Well to be fair he would only be a hypocrite if he refuses to show Brokeback Mountain but has no objections to Hostel. Brokeback Mountain is about a consensual relationship between a couple of guys. Hostel is about the non-consensual torture of innocent people. Both should be equally offensive to his audience. Neither should have much of an audience in SLC. So IMO if the theatre owner shows one and not the other (because of concerns about the potential audience) he’s a hypocrite. If this were the case, I’d call him the worst kind of hypocrite because violence is okay but sex (even the non-explicit kind that is seen in Hollywood movies) isn’t. But having said that, I’m sure there’s no more hypocrisy involved than whatever it takes to sell tickets and make the best use of his retail space.
In that case the theatre owner is even more of a hypocrite, making some kind of
moral statement, but expecting someone else to suffer the economic loss of the
decision.
Assuming this is the way it works, the theater owner does get hit pretty hard. He pays the distributor for a film he did not show, and did not collect revenue for. The film he put on that screen instead earned him some revenue, but he pays a distributor for that too.
The distributor doesn’t get any extra money, but it’s a definite hit to the theater’s books, cost without revenue.
Plus the film gets a little “free” publicity, sounds fair to me.
I don’t know if he has any personal objections to either movie. Apparently, the special interest group/community group/whatever you want to call it objected to one particular movie and the owner bowed to that pressure. Businesses have been known to do that.
Fair enough. This community interest group should be objecting to Hostel too though. Everything I’ve read about it leads me to believe it’s the last movie you’d want to show in a town of Mormons. If they’re not objecting to it, I fully agree with you- they’re the hypocrites.
Tricky. That means that any group that chooses its battles (preferring ones that seem winnable over ones that are more difficult) is acting hypocritically. It’s possible the group does object to Hostel. They might object to a lot of movies (if they’re really radical, all movies) but they chose to focus on one specific film where the chance of getting a theatre owner to comply was probably the highest.
You can call the group a lot of things, but I don’t think “hypocrite” is useful, unless you want to claim they’re privately making and exhibiting gay cowboy movies of their own.
Don’t know if this has been covered yet . . . Why did Larry Miller agree to show the film in his theater in the first place, and then change his mind? When he booked the movie, did he not know what it was about?
I think it may have something to do with the licensing agreement with his distributor.