Question on Larry H. Miller Decision - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

il Padrino Ute · 01-11-2006, 03:36 AM

He never gave a reason for doing so and to proclaim that we all know the reason is nothing but speculation.

That Miller decided he didn't want the movie shown in his theater has no bearing on me at all, nor should it on anyone else, as there are other places one can go to see it.

I've made the decision that I won't see the movie, as there is nothing in it that piques my interest. Besides, I doubt there are enough scenes of stuff exploding, which we all know is what makes a movie good.

Archaea · 01-11-2006, 04:07 AM

I don't have a problem saying gay sex is worse than illicit heterosexual sex. Not saying the latter is good, unless it's real good (okay a joke), but to me, one is simply a failure to reign in one's natural tendencies, whereas the former is a bastardization of proper uses of the privilege.

Nonetheless, I don't know whether LHM cares about the woman you referred to, as she is not known to me, or whether some stake president made a comment such as "Larry you're not going to show that are you?"

"Oh of course not."

Or, market research showed it wouldn't make money at that location based on rental fees. What if that were his justification? If he wasn't going to make the license fees, he shouldn't have to show it.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't have a problem saying gay sex is worse than illicit heterosexual sex. Not saying the latter is good, unless it's real good (okay a joke), but to me, one is simply a failure to reign in one's natural tendencies, whereas the former is a bastardization of proper uses of the privilege.

First of all, bravo for stepping up to the plate. Care to give any doctrinal evidence for your conclusion? I am guessing this is your opinion since I have never heard of such a distinction.

So it boils down to controlling a "natural" urge vs. an "unnatural" urge? Non-celibate gays are guilty of a greater sin than your garden-variety adulterer since it is "unnatural".

Well, I respect your opinion, but I'm not buying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nonetheless, I don't know whether LHM cares about the woman you referred to, as she is not known to me

Oh, trust me. If you knew Gayle R. you would understand what I am talking about. She is a real legend. Pardon me for the presumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

, or whether some stake president made a comment such as "Larry you're not going to show that are you?"

"Oh of course not."

I find that extremely unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Or, market research showed it wouldn't make money at that location based on rental fees. What if that were his justification? If he wasn't going to make the license fees, he shouldn't have to show it.

I find this extremely unlikely as well. In fact, I find it borderline ludicrous. Given all of the hype and the oscar buzz, I guarantee you he would have covered his license fees. Especially compared to all of the other schlock that goes through the theaters. In fact, it appears he is going to pay a penalty to the distributor for backing out of his contract. Furthermore, SLC is not nearly as homogenous as you think.

myboynoah · 01-11-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homeboy

In other words, regardless of which side you stand on in this debate, don't you think it is a bit absurd to claim he should not be open to criticism?

Yes.

There, that was quite simple.

In the past Larry Miller has shown ample evidence of fairly arbitrary, seemingly inconsistant decision-making. On the surface, this appears to be another example. I'm much the same way on a much smaller scale as a father.

Anyway, Miller kept the Jazz in Utah, so I am quite forgiving.

RockyBalboa · 01-11-2006, 06:06 PM

Isn't this the hypothetical strawman type of argument that you've told me in posts on Cougarboard that you claim to be weak kind of arguments and furthermore since they are strawman aren't in need of further explanations?

Larry can be open to criticism just as I or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with Larry doing what he's doing.

I think both sides of the issue for what it's worth are making in reality a big deal about nothing. Actually, now that I think about it, I haven't read anything from Larry H Miller on the topic out there, and if I'm wrong, then someone please post a link, but it seems to be the groups screaming at him are the ones making a big deal out of essentially well...nothing.

I can see it now,,,if Brokeback is snubbed by the Academy Voters the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be nothing compared to this LHM topic.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Anyway, Miller kept the Jazz in Utah, so I am quite forgiving.

Amen to that, brother.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Isn't this the hypothetical strawman type of argument that you've told me in posts on Cougarboard that you claim to be weak kind of arguments and furthermore since they are strawman aren't in need of further explanations?

Except for the fact that this doesn't meet the definition of a straw man. See explanation above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Larry can be open to criticism just as I or anyone else for that matter.

Well, it appears we agree on something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I have no problem with Larry doing what he's doing.

No surprise there. In fact, I would have bet the farm that you would feel that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I think both sides of the issue for what it's worth are making in reality a big deal about nothing.

Perhaps. But it is fun to debate it anyway.

UteStar · 01-12-2006, 12:19 AM

I am actually a fan of Larry Miller for what he has done for the sports scene in Utah and for the entertainment he has brought to the state.

But, this bothers me. It bothers me because it appears that he randomly picked this movie out and decided what is appropriate for the viewing audience. Yes it has been discussed...but what makes this movie different from other R-rated movies. Is the violence portrayed in the Matrix, Saving Private Ryan or other violent movies more saintful than a homosexual relationship. It bothers me that he let this movie get all the way to about an hour before playtime before pulling it.

If Miller and his movie chain want to be my moral compass, then they should do the easy thing and ban all R-rated movies and some PG-13 movies and have this a 'family' friendly movie theater where only family type movies are shown. So, yes it bothers me. Change your movie theater policy if this is going to continue.

Archaea · 01-12-2006, 12:27 AM

Everybody jumping on LHM do so because they believe they personally know his motives.

I've never met the man, and a few actions in public are insufficient to convey a person's motives.

You may suspect his motives but you don't know them.

Heck his wife could have told him she didn't want it playing. If my wife told me that, it wouldn't play.

I seriously doubt he would have made up the money he would have lost had he shown the film. It's a financial, not moral decision. With most businessmen as wealthy as Larry, it usually is.

Alkili · 01-12-2006, 01:26 AM

Is everyone so sure that this was even LHM decision? I think it is funny everyone jumping to conclusions that they know less then nothing about.

01-11-2006, 03:36 AM	#11
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	Why speculate on the reason Miller chose to yank the movie? He never gave a reason for doing so and to proclaim that we all know the reason is nothing but speculation. That Miller decided he didn't want the movie shown in his theater has no bearing on me at all, nor should it on anyone else, as there are other places one can go to see it. I've made the decision that I won't see the movie, as there is nothing in it that piques my interest. Besides, I doubt there are enough scenes of stuff exploding, which we all know is what makes a movie good. __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

01-11-2006, 04:07 AM	#12
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I don't have a problem saying gay sex is worse than illicit heterosexual sex. Not saying the latter is good, unless it's real good (okay a joke), but to me, one is simply a failure to reign in one's natural tendencies, whereas the former is a bastardization of proper uses of the privilege. Nonetheless, I don't know whether LHM cares about the woman you referred to, as she is not known to me, or whether some stake president made a comment such as "Larry you're not going to show that are you?" "Oh of course not." Or, market research showed it wouldn't make money at that location based on rental fees. What if that were his justification? If he wasn't going to make the license fees, he shouldn't have to show it. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-12-2006, 12:27 AM	#19
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Everybody jumping on LHM do so because they believe they personally know his motives. I've never met the man, and a few actions in public are insufficient to convey a person's motives. You may suspect his motives but you don't know them. Heck his wife could have told him she didn't want it playing. If my wife told me that, it wouldn't play. I seriously doubt he would have made up the money he would have lost had he shown the film. It's a financial, not moral decision. With most businessmen as wealthy as Larry, it usually is. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-12-2006, 01:26 AM	#20
Alkili Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 263	Is everyone so sure that this was even LHM decision? I think it is funny everyone jumping to conclusions that they know less then nothing about. __________________ Dark is the Night, but I begin to see the light.

01-11-2006, 06:06 PM	#15
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	Isn't this the hypothetical strawman type of argument that you've told me in posts on Cougarboard that you claim to be weak kind of arguments and furthermore since they are strawman aren't in need of further explanations? Larry can be open to criticism just as I or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with Larry doing what he's doing. I think both sides of the issue for what it's worth are making in reality a big deal about nothing. Actually, now that I think about it, I haven't read anything from Larry H Miller on the topic out there, and if I'm wrong, then someone please post a link, but it seems to be the groups screaming at him are the ones making a big deal out of essentially well...nothing. I can see it now,,,if Brokeback is snubbed by the Academy Voters the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be nothing compared to this LHM topic.

01-12-2006, 12:19 AM	#18
UteStar Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,817	I am actually a fan of Larry Miller for what he has done for the sports scene in Utah and for the entertainment he has brought to the state. But, this bothers me. It bothers me because it appears that he randomly picked this movie out and decided what is appropriate for the viewing audience. Yes it has been discussed...but what makes this movie different from other R-rated movies. Is the violence portrayed in the Matrix, Saving Private Ryan or other violent movies more saintful than a homosexual relationship. It bothers me that he let this movie get all the way to about an hour before playtime before pulling it. If Miller and his movie chain want to be my moral compass, then they should do the easy thing and ban all R-rated movies and some PG-13 movies and have this a 'family' friendly movie theater where only family type movies are shown. So, yes it bothers me. Change your movie theater policy if this is going to continue.