AMC bans "The Aristocrats"

[Apossum]

AMC theater patrons won't be getting joke
As merging chain takes a pass on vulgar film, some fear consolidation will curb free speech

By Mark Caro
Tribune entertainment reporter
Published July 14, 2005

The new movie "The Aristocrats" features no sex or violence, just lots of words.

Dirty words.

And you won't be hearing them at an AMC theater because the national chain has, depending on whom you believe, either yanked the coming release from its theaters, including the downtown River East 21, or simply declined to book it.

Instead, "The Aristocrats," a documentary featuring about 100 comedians telling variations of the filthiest-ever joke, will open at Loews' Esquire and Pipers Alley theaters on Aug. 12.

But because AMC is in the process of acquiring Loews to create the country's second-largest theater chain, "The Aristocrats" might have met a different fate here if it were released six months later.

The deal is expected to close early in 2006, pending regulatory approval. When it does, AMC will control the most screens in the Chicago area.

ThinkFilm President and Chief Executive Jeff Sackman, whose Toronto-based company is releasing "The Aristocrats"--which is not rated due to the vulgar language--views AMC's move as a blow against free speech and a cautionary tale of theater consolidation.

AMC spokeswoman Pam Blase calls the issue a matter of commercial considerations.

Penn Jillette, who helped produce and shoot the movie with comedian/director Paul Provenza, takes a more philosophical approach.

"At least it's showing that words have power, and we haven't had that statement made in a while--and the fact that it's being made by a goofy, stupid person doesn't make it any less uplifting," said the speaking half of comedy team Penn & Teller.

Jillette was referring to AMC Film Group Chairman Dick Walsh, who, with other executives, decided to reject the film. Blase noted that AMC theaters in Chicago and Atlanta had been considered, but "nothing was booked. There was never any agreement."

That's not true, Sackman said. "The fact is it was booked. And then we got an e-mail internally that said, `We've been instructed from on top that we can't play this film.'"

Blase said AMC's decision was based not on taste but "business rationale." She said unrated or NC-17 movies automatically receive "corporate attention" at the Kansas City, Mo.-based company.

"They thought it would have limited audience appeal," she said, noting that the chain has shown other unrated films.

Yet even if "The Aristocrats" becomes a breakout hit when it opens in New York and Los Angeles on July 29, Blase said AMC still won't consider showing it.

"The Aristocrats" is shot cheaply on digital-video cameras but boasts marquee comedians such as Robin Williams, Drew Carey, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart and George Carlin riffing on a largely improvised joke involving an unspeakable family nightclub act.

Matthew Harrigan, a movie industry analyst with Denver-based Janco Partners, said the "relatively conservative" AMC might not see much upside in playing an independent distributor's potentially controversial film.

"It's not a matter of preserving studio relationships, so if they're going to get flak and not going to make a lot of money on it, what's the point of releasing it?" he said.

But as more and more theater chains merge, Sackman worries that executives such as Walsh will become the country's de facto movie taste arbiters.

"You're going to have two theater circuits dominant in the country, and they're going to say, `We don't think you should see this movie,'" Sackman said.

Jillette added that although AMC's decision could cost him money and viewers, he doesn't want to play the victim.

"One thing I really hate is people like Michael Moore and Mel Gibson, who are the exact same person with 1,000 sit-ups' difference," Jillette said. "They try to make themselves into a martyr no matter how much money they're making. We are not martyrs on this.

"For us to make any sort of statement that our artistic expression is being trounced would be self-serving, unpleasant and not true."

The South Park take on the joke(uh, don't watch it around your kids or family):
http://www.waxy.org/random/video/southpark_aristocrats.wmv

[Zenithian Legend]

wait... this isn't the version with the cats is it?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Fucking Kansas City based companies. :bomb: :oops:

[smalien1]

My aunt is one of the comedians in that

[Apossum]

wait... this isn't the version with the cats is it?

:lol:
this is the one about comedians trying to out-do each other in offensiveness....
starts out with a graphic family orgy and usually ties in something else that's taboo to joke about. like in that south park vid, they use 9/11.

[evilmax17]

Is what Cartman says really the joke?

[Duo_Maxwell]

wait... this isn't the version with the cats is it?

Nope that's the AristoCATS, IIRC this is just a film where the same dirty jokes or something like that are done by all kinds of different comedians, but it maybe a little more interesting if it was all animated cats telling the jokes instead.

[DT778]

:lol:
this is the one about comedians trying to out-do each other in offensiveness....
starts out with a graphic family orgy and usually ties in something else that's taboo to joke about. like in that south park vid, they use 9/11.
does it always have to start with a graphic family orgy?

[Zenithian Legend]

Well... now I actually want to see it, damn you AMC!

[Greetard]

Wait, if it's a movie about 100 comedians telling the same joke, wouldn't it get boring after awhile?

[Apossum]

does it always have to start with a graphic family orgy?

yeah, I think so.

Wait, if it's a movie about 100 comedians telling the same joke, wouldn't it get boring after awhile?

sounds like it.

[Steve Dave]

I really don't have an issue with them not showing the movie. If it is a good film then I would show it in my theater but I don't think there is anything wrong with them not showing it.


From this point on everyone who come in this thread should say if they though this thread was about the Disney film or not.

I have heard of the film but when I saw the thread title I thought American Movies Classics had banned the AristoCATS.

[cletus]

I've seen that South Park version before and thought it was pretty funny. I laughed at the part where the dad stuffs the baby back into the mother's womb and then proceeds to... eh, well... you'll just have to watch.

I recommend anyone with a sick sense of humor watch it. Even Kenny looks grossed out.

It doesn't always start with a orgy. Usually it begins with the family auditioning for the talent agent. Anything after that is up to the individual comedian. The more disgusting and vulgar the funnier. Part of the appeal is seeing how each successive act can top the previous one. I read a bit about this in Time and was interested enough to find out more online.

[Apossum]

It doesn't always start with a orgy.

that's good to know, now I can't wait to see this!

It sucks that they won't show it in AMC, but this movie will do well either way. 100 hundred of the world's greatest comedians telling the sickest joke they can possibly think of. :drool: sweeeeeeet.

[Zenithian Legend]

I really don't have an issue with them not showing the movie. If it is a good film then I would show it in my theater but I don't think there is anything wrong with them not showing it.


From this point on everyone who come in this thread should say if they though this thread was about the Disney film or not.

I have heard of the film but when I saw the thread title I thought American Movies Classics had banned the AristoCATS.

If you scroll up to the second post you'll see that's exactly what I thought/feared, to think what have those sweet little pussycats ever done to the AMC channel?

And do you really have your own theater?

[Gothic Walrus]

I haven't even heard of the movie, but now I want to see it.

Negative publicity strikes again!

[cheapass Gundam]

I must have missed this episode of South Park, when did it air and what was the episode's title?

[Saucy Jack]

I must have missed this episode of South Park, when did it air and what was the episode's title?

I don't think it was part of an episode. I believe it was created just for this film.

[cgpwns]

It was in Focus magazine, and the other monopolizing theater chain, Regal Entertainment group should be showing the film, at least as a limited release.

[neocisco]

AMC made a business decision. They decided that the potential negative publicity was not the worth the risk, financially. The complaining of censorship is ridiculous. It's not locked away in a vault, neverr to be seen by human eyes. The movie will be shown, just not by AMC. Personally, I'm sick of people raising the censorship flag w/o even thinking about whether the issue actually is "censorship".

[dafoomie]

I really don't have an issue with them not showing the movie. If it is a good film then I would show it in my theater but I don't think there is anything wrong with them not showing it.


From this point on everyone who come in this thread should say if they though this thread was about the Disney film or not.

I have heard of the film but when I saw the thread title I thought American Movies Classics had banned the AristoCATS.
The issue isn't that one chain decided not to show the movie. The issue is, that there are going to be only 2 major theatre chains nationwide after AMC buys Loews, and in some cities, like Chicago and Boston, AMC will be the only game in town. So if AMC doesn't want to show your movie, some parts of the country pretty much won't be able to see it at all. Its not censorship per se, but since they have a near monopoly in some markets, it is effectively censoring that movie. This doesn't just affect controversial films, a lot of independent films aren't going to get shown anymore.

If they weren't about to buy Loews, it wouldn't be such a big deal.


Thank you for coming to Loews!
http://home.comcast.net/~dafoomie/loews.au
Does anyone have a higher quality or video version of this, btw?

[Apossum]

it's financially based censorship, but it still kinda sucks. I would like to think that this kind of movie would be good for widening the horizons of the mainstream. but if that south park clip is any indication, there's going to be an angry advocacy group for every joke in the movie. they'll raise a ruckus, then the bored ass opportunist politicians step in and yadda yadda yadda, the movie gets blacklisted.

[thatstoobad]

The issue isn't that one chain decided not to show the movie. The issue is, that there are going to be only 2 major theatre chains nationwide after AMC buys Loews, and in some cities, like Chicago and Boston, AMC will be the only game in town. So if AMC doesn't want to show your movie, some parts of the country pretty much won't be able to see it at all. Its not censorship per se, but since they have a near monopoly in some markets, it is effectively censoring that movie. This doesn't just affect controversial films, a lot of independent films aren't going to get shown anymore.

If they weren't about to buy Loews, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
exactly. it's easy for people around here, as i'm sure the main art theater will be playing the film (though i totally hate driving to royal oak), but in many parts of the country, not having the film play in amc OR loews theaters means that the people living there will either have to drive very far to see the film or possibly not see it at all (until it's out on dvd).

it's just pretty crappy for the people who live in areas where there's no alternative.

[TheUnsane1]

"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore
thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel
thought that his little gay S&M movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him
get to heaven. George W. Bush is president and there’s still no god. You failed boys.
Someone should have told Mike that the bad guys are smarter than him and someone
should have told Mel that the Three Stooges were Jewish.
Both those filthy rich losers wanted EVERYONE to see their movies. Moore wanted the
Republicans to be shocked by how wrong they were and see the light shining out of his
fat ass. Mel went for straight off the rack proselytizing. They both just got even richer."
This is from the movies webpage if the movie can deliver this kind of blasting and offend as many people as that quote most likely does it will easily be in my top 10 favorite movies ever.

[coolsteel]

I actually want to see the movie now, I had forgotten how funny that South Park version was.

[beerguy961]

I live in a college town, I'm gonna guess they'll have it... Or I'll go to SF to see it. I'm to lazy to protest...

[Greetard]

Here's the list of comedians:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Greetard/comedianlist.jpg

[Kayden]

Eddie Izzard, SCORE!

:mrgreen:

[Saucy Jack]

Eddie Izzard, SCORE!

:mrgreen:

Alright, Kayden. Make a choice: cake or death?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

What about the D.C.s? No Dane Cook, Dave Chappelle, or David Cross? Drew Carey is a poor substitute. :cry: :lol:

[Kayden]

Alright, Kayden. Make a choice: cake or death?

Cake please.

Sorry, were all out, only had the three bits and weren't expecting such a rush.

So my choice is OR DEATH? .... .... I'll have the chicken!

Very well sir, tastes of human.

:lol:

Yes, I have 90% of his skits memorized.

[Apossum]

did NOT expect Carrot Top to be on the list :lol:

Glad to see Bob Saget on there, I bet his will be one of the nastiest versions. that guy is a sick motherfucker!

[Greetard]

What about the D.C.s? No Dane Cook, Dave Chappelle, or David Cross? Drew Carey is a poor substitute. :cry: :lol:

The movie is made by Penn (of Penn and Teller), and he only asked his friends to be in the movie. I guess they aren't good enough to hang out with him.

[smalien1]

Yes Im Related To The Only "e" On The Whole Page

[Saucy Jack]

Cake please.

Sorry, were all out, only had the three bits and weren't expecting such a rush.

So my choice is OR DEATH? .... .... I'll have the chicken!

Very well sir, tastes of human.

:lol:

Yes, I have 90% of his skits memorized.

All I know is that no matter where you go, if you say "Shaggy & Scooby," people will understand... :)

[dtcarson]

AMC made a business decision. They decided that the potential negative publicity was not the worth the risk, financially. The complaining of censorship is ridiculous. It's not locked away in a vault, neverr to be seen by human eyes. The movie will be shown, just not by AMC. Personally, I'm sick of people raising the censorship flag w/o even thinking about whether the issue actually is "censorship".


You said it before I could.

[on first reading the title, I thought the television channel AMC wasn't going to play the Disney Aristocats film...I was like, "What?"]

It's not censorship in any way shape or form. The work remains the same, and is released. It's just not shown via a certain venue [which as a private business owner, is entirely AMc's decision.]
If make a movie--about anything--and my local Cinemark doesnt' show it, am I being 'censored'? It's pure misunderstanding at best, ignorance at worst, to say 'yes'.

I'm sure it'll be on dvd in three or four months anyway.

[Apossum]

I'm totally missing the part of this thread where people complained about censorship.


"For us to make any sort of statement that our artistic expression is being trounced would be self-serving, unpleasant and not true."

[dtcarson]

Well, "banning" then. Which implies or is similar censorship, ie, it's illegal to see or have or possess this content.
They're not banning the content, they just aren't carrying it.

[Saucy Jack]

Isn't AMC the same theater chain that offered refunds if you saw "Cinderella Man" and disliked it?

[cletus]

I'll like to see Carrot Top's version, just for the hell of it. :D

[Graystone]

AMC made a business decision.


They sure did, they just increased illegal downloads for this movie by tenfold.

[Apossum]

Well, "banning" then. Which implies or is similar censorship, ie, it's illegal to see or have or possess this content.
They're not banning the content, they just aren't carrying it.


I'm not trying to pretend this is controversial or a horrible injustice. anyway, those are 2 different words to me and neither has anything to do with the law unless the government's involved.

censored = AMC will release an edited version with all the swears bleeped.

banned = AMC won't carry it(no matter the reason, though it's partially financial in this case.)

they publicly stated that they won't carry it even if it becomes a big hit, so they banned it by definition. kinda lame, but I'm sure they have banned plenty of movies in the past and no one noticed.

[dtcarson]

But it's not a "ban" except in the loosest sense of the term. You can go watch it as much as you want, other theaters can carry it as well. The word 'ban' is emotionally loaded and i think it was misleading to use it in reference to a situation like this.

It's like my saying WalMart bans Playboy magazine.
No, they just don't sell it, it is perfectly legal and ok for me to get it via other venues [assuming I'm over 18].

[Apossum]

okay, well we agree to disagree :-) I don't think ban is emotionally loaded at all and I wasn't intending a Vs. topic. In fact, I ripped the title straight from the Chicago Tribune, who also weren't making a fuss about it but found it intriguing.

[elprincipe]

It's not banned or censored. Nobody has stopped its released and nobody has modified its content.

A question about this though, the two major theater chain thing, does it even matter anymore? I mean, movies hit DVD so fast and PPV. Couldn't they just release it straight to DVD or PPV, even if they couldn't get it in theaters? Even stores like Best Buy carry softcore porn, so you'd think something like this wouldn't be a problem to sell for them. Does one chain (or even both big ones) not carrying it even make that much of a difference anymore for such a niche film?

And the South Park version was hilarious!

[dtcarson]

Agreed. Why is it even news?
Is it news when my local Cinemark 'refuses to carry' the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
If they drop a movie after one weekend, are they 'banning' it?
That 'article' was sensationalism meant to capitalize on the current [incorrect] belief that free speech is being vastly limited. If it were anything else, I would expect to see an article on every movie that a theatre or theater chain decides not to carry.
Why, there's millions of Bollywood movies being released each year, obviously it's racism that AMC isn't carrying them!

That said, this movie doesnt' really sound all that 'funny' to me, but I've never been a big fan of crude language for its own sake.

[jmcc]

Agreed. Why is it even news?
Is it news when my local Cinemark 'refuses to carry' the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
If they drop a movie after one weekend, are they 'banning' it?
That 'article' was sensationalism meant to capitalize on the current [incorrect] belief that free speech is being vastly limited. If it were anything else, I would expect to see an article on every movie that a theatre or theater chain decides not to carry.
Why, there's millions of Bollywood movies being released each year, obviously it's racism that AMC isn't carrying them!

That said, this movie doesnt' really sound all that 'funny' to me, but I've never been a big fan of crude language for its own sake.

Please don't be intentionally obtuse. This is a story because media is consolidating more and more, and this is an example of what can happen as it does. You don't complain now because it's not something you want to see, but if a single entity can dictate what will be shown in theatres, then they'll affect what Hollywood will produce. Moreover, what happens when it turns out that media channels will no longer carry programs, especially news, unfavorable to their political interests? It's a business decision for right now, but it's a dire portent for not just art, but the nation as a whole.

[Quackzilla]

It's only value is shock value, a bunch of people reteling a crude joke, that's neither funny nor is it an actual movie.

I don't see any reason at all why AMC would show it, it's just stupid.

This isn't a censorship issue, it's a stupid fuckheads making a big issue out of nothing.

[dtcarson]

Please don't be intentionally obtuse. This is a story because media is consolidating more and more, and this is an example of what can happen as it does. You don't complain now because it's not something you want to see, but if a single entity can dictate what will be shown in theatres, then they'll affect what Hollywood will produce. Moreover, what happens when it turns out that media channels will no longer carry programs, especially news, unfavorable to their political interests? It's a business decision for right now, but it's a dire portent for not just art, but the nation as a whole.


Yes, the movie theater owners actually decide what movies they want to show. What horror!

The media is still produced, and still quite available. Many titles go straight to DVD and are more profitable, and more widely available, than many theatrical releases
The same thing occurs from Blockbuster and WalMart, where's your outrage there? They are so powerful and such big markets that they can basically cause a dvd release to come out only in R-rated rather than Unrated.
However, the MARKETPLACE reacted, and there was enough of a market for other things, that though BBV and WM are still huge, they are not the only source to view certain materials. Hundreds of etailers, dozens of dvd rental services, most of which will carry this dvd if/when it is released.
Though certain venues are being consolidated [which in many cases is a sign of them not currently being profitable, that is, not enough people support the variety or whatever], there are also many more alternate venues for the media. Radio is consolidating, and in a reaction to that, we have the huge amounts of variety available in a relatively new industry, satellite radio. Plus internet radio, etc.

Media channels *already* no longer carry programs, due to various interests. It doesn't matter if its financial or political etc. Futurama, Joan of Arcadia, Firefly, even Family Guy before the rebirth, were any of those 'banned'? No.
The right to free speech is *not* infringed. Penn and Teller can make as many 'movies' like this as they want. But the right of free speech does not necessarily translate to the right to be heard. I don't have to carry your entertainment product on my channel/theater/station whatever, if I don't want to. The work is still available, and enough people want to see it, then it can be seen in one form or another.

By your logic, if I make a movie featuring a bunch of people telling crude jokes or insulting people/politicians, and it isn't picked up by a theater or HBO or somebody, then it's a "chilling effect" on "art" and everybody should be up in arms. No longer does the theater or channel have the right to say "Hey, thanks for calling, but we won't be carrying your movie because we don't think it'll make any money." Somehow that translates to a "ban" and a "dire portent" on art. Hardly.

Dear God, I agree with Quackzilla on something. The world is ending : )

[jmcc]

Yes, the movie theater owners actually decide what movies they want to show. What horror!

The media is still produced, and still quite available. Many titles go straight to DVD and are more profitable, and more widely available, than many theatrical releases
The same thing occurs from Blockbuster and WalMart, where's your outrage there? They are so powerful and such big markets that they can basically cause a dvd release to come out only in R-rated rather than Unrated.
However, the MARKETPLACE reacted, and there was enough of a market for other things, that though BBV and WM are still huge, they are not the only source to view certain materials. Hundreds of etailers, dozens of dvd rental services, most of which will carry this dvd if/when it is released.
Though certain venues are being consolidated [which in many cases is a sign of them not currently being profitable, that is, not enough people support the variety or whatever], there are also many more alternate venues for the media. Radio is consolidating, and in a reaction to that, we have the huge amounts of variety available in a relatively new industry, satellite radio. Plus internet radio, etc.

Media channels *already* no longer carry programs, due to various interests. It doesn't matter if its financial or political etc. Futurama, Joan of Arcadia, Firefly, even Family Guy before the rebirth, were any of those 'banned'? No.
The right to free speech is *not* infringed. Penn and Teller can make as many 'movies' like this as they want. But the right of free speech does not necessarily translate to the right to be heard. I don't have to carry your entertainment product on my channel/theater/station whatever, if I don't want to. The work is still available, and enough people want to see it, then it can be seen in one form or another.

By your logic, if I make a movie featuring a bunch of people telling crude jokes or insulting people/politicians, and it isn't picked up by a theater or HBO or somebody, then it's a "chilling effect" on "art" and everybody should be up in arms. No longer does the theater or channel have the right to say "Hey, thanks for calling, but we won't be carrying your movie because we don't think it'll make any money." Somehow that translates to a "ban" and a "dire portent" on art. Hardly.

Dear God, I agree with Quackzilla on something. The world is ending : )

Of course. Since nothing's wrong today, it will always be like that forever and ever, amen.

At least now I know who not to go to when they come for the communists, socialists, trade unionists or Jews.

[dtcarson]

Of course. Since nothing's wrong today, it will always be like that forever and ever, amen.

At least now I know who not to go to when they come for the communists, socialists, trade unionists or Jews.


Now you're just being insulting. And have no concept of reality.

You're equating a movie theater--currently NOT the government, as far as I know--voluntarily deciding to NOT carry a "movie", which already has buzz, and will likely be available via at least five other venues within six months after release, to the government torture and purge of certain political parties or races/religions? It's that kind of overreacting bullshit that, in addition to being entirely incorrect in virtually every level of comparison, serves to degrade the memory of those who TRULY suffered --and I'm sorry, comparing not getting your movie shown by a certain theater chain is a damn insult to, oh, virtually everyone affected by WWII, the Nazis, the Fascists, the Stalinist purges, etc. GIve Michael Moore a call, I'm sure he can use your kind of 'logic'.

Then again, I guess that's a good sign, that you're comparing those; because if *this* is biggest 'unfairness' or 'cruelty', our generation has to deal with, we've got it pretty damn good.

I'm going to write AMC a letter praising them for their fine decision in not carrying this movie.

[jmcc]

Now you're just being insulting. And have no concept of reality.

You're equating a movie theater--currently NOT the government, as far as I know--voluntarily deciding to NOT carry a "movie", which already has buzz, and will likely be available via at least five other venues within six months after release, to the government torture and purge of certain political parties or races/religions? It's that kind of overreacting bullshit that, in addition to being entirely incorrect in virtually every level of comparison, serves to degrade the memory of those who TRULY suffered --and I'm sorry, comparing not getting your movie shown by a certain theater chain is a damn insult to, oh, virtually everyone affected by WWII, the Nazis, the Fascists, the Stalinist purges, etc. GIve Michael Moore a call, I'm sure he can use your kind of 'logic'.

Then again, I guess that's a good sign, that you're comparing those; because if *this* is biggest 'unfairness' or 'cruelty', our generation has to deal with, we've got it pretty damn good.

I'm going to write AMC a letter praising them for their fine decision in not carrying this movie.

I'm comparing your complacency towards a corporate entity deciding what you can or cannot see to it, yeah. Your attitude is a large part of what's wrong with the country. And don't you ever talk about degrading people's memories. Someone so eager to roll over for big business is spitting in the face of everyone who's ever fought for the freedom of this country with every breath you take.

[dtcarson]

I'm comparing your complacency towards a corporate entity deciding what you can or cannot see to it, yeah

Wrong.

I can still see this 'movie' if I want [once it's released, of course]. AMC's actions do not affect that.
I fully EXPECT a corporate entity to decide what they do or do not want to carry. Do you get up in arms when you find out that WalMart doesn't carry a certain game/book/movie/whatever? They are not preventing you from getting it, they are just not selling it to you.
I don't have 'complacency' about this. I fully support AMC's right to choose what they want to show, and not be cowed by jingoistic "information should be free!" zealots. Because if there's enough market for it, someone ELSE will release it, or carry it, and profit from it.
Again, the right to free speech does not imply or entail the right to be carried by the venues you prefer.

I can't eat a steak at McDonalds! Damn them! How dare they decide what I can or can't eat?
What? My local library doesn't carry this book? My First Amendment rights are being violated! When will it end? Next thing, they'll be burning my Shakespeare!

Part of what those people fought for is the very freedom for companies to run their business the way they want, as long as it's not inherently discriminatory [like not serving to blacks or women, for instance.] To start their business, to find a market and try to satisfy it, to better themselves financially and provide a service someone needs or wants. Like that 'CleanFlix' thing; I would never use it, but I support their ability to find a niche and fill it, since they are not actually 'editing' the content [if I understand it correctly].

I guess your definition of 'freedom' would be the allpowerful Government deciding that every movie theater chain must carry every movie released, otherwise it's merely a 'dire portent' or whats to come.

So to summarize, you don't believe a media distribution company has the right to decide what items of entertainment media it shows/carries?

[Apossum]

wow.

it's amazing how some people can interpret an objective article. They banned it, just like people can get banned from a site, and Loews is going to pick it up and make bank off of it. It's not an issue at all--AMC probably bans movies every day-- the tribune just ran the story because it's interesting that a movie with such a huge famous cast yet controversial material got removed from AMCs roster. Notice how they made sure to emphasize that nobody really cares? :lol:

[bobo2k4]

Found a trailer for the movie.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/the_aristocrats.html

Never heard of it before reading this thread but i wanna see it now.

[neocisco]

dtcarson and jmcc, I'd like to commend both of you for conducting yourselves as adults in this thread. You both have stated your (very) different viewpoints in an articulate manner w/o resorting to juvenile name-calling or just cussing one another out. I just wanted to say thank you.

[jaykrue]

Hah, when I jumped in this thread, I thought when everyone was talking about AMC, I thought they were talking about the cable channel American Movie Classics. :lol:

[dafoomie]

wow.

it's amazing how some people can interpret an objective article. They banned it, just like people can get banned from a site, and Loews is going to pick it up and make bank off of it. It's not an issue at all--AMC probably bans movies every day-- the tribune just ran the story because it's interesting that a movie with such a huge famous cast yet controversial material got removed from AMCs roster. Notice how they made sure to emphasize that nobody really cares? :lol:
Under normal circumstances, thats what happens, and everyone is happy. But, AMC is buying Loews, so you might not get to see these movies in the future. That is the issue.

[Apossum]

Under normal circumstances, thats what happens, and everyone is happy. But, AMC is buying Loews, so you might not get to see these movies in the future. That is the issue.

There are more than 2 types of theaters in the U.S. It's really not a "hell in a handbasket" type of issue. it's as simple as looking past the loews and AMC ads in the paper and looking for independently owned theaters. it's good to support the locals anyway.

[dafoomie]

There are more than 2 types of theaters in the U.S. It's really not a "hell in a handbasket" type of issue. it's as simple as looking past the loews and AMC ads in the paper and looking for independently owned theaters. it's good to support the locals anyway.
There aren't a lot of local theatres anymore aside from the little ones that run 2nd run movies (ones that are almost out on DVD anyway). If you've got one of those theatres that runs independent films, then great, but a lot of people don't, lots of places only had AMC and Loews.

I'm not saying AMC is "evil" or that its actual censorship, I'm just saying, as a consequence of the merger, there will be less "controversial" and independent films shown in theatres across the country. Loews was good about showing these kinds of films that other chains wouldn't pick up. They won't be around anymore.