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

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 12:10 AM

I read all the "attaboys" today on CB directed to Larry H. Miller for his courageous efforts to stand up to the "homos" by refusing to show the gay cowboy movie. I won't argue the hypocrisy angle again since it has been beaten to death. I will also agree that LHM has every right to do what he has done. And it is certainly not "censorship" based on the correct definition of the term. However, quite a few posters implied that it is unfair to criticize LHM's decision since it is based on "moral convictions" and he is a private business man.

Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a movie came along that featured a love story between a black man and a white woman and LHM decided to pull the movie as a result. Let's suppose he brought up some old LDS GA quotes about the evils of mixing races (yes, there are plenty out there - I am guessing grapevine has some of them memorized), hence it is a moral/religous issue. Do you think it would be fair to criticize him then? 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?

By the way, I was going to post this on CB but while I was composing it, the big thread on this topic got deleted. I am guessing that a moderator got a little uneasy with some of the more outrageous comments that were being posted.

cougjunkie · 01-11-2006, 12:56 AM

I think business wise for Larry H it makes sense. he is directed his theatres towards families, which is what 90% of marketing gurus in Utah would do. If he is showing that movie then families are going to come in and see lots of homosexuals attending the movie and the parents of these sheltered kids will get upset and complain (i am sure this has already happened) So larry needs to think long term do i piss off the families and anti-gays that have been seeing my movies for years, or piss off the handful of homosexuals? You choose the families every time (except maybe in San Franscisco). So maybe he loses a Ford Focus to a gay couple, but i guarantee he sells plenty of mini vans because of his decision.

Business wise it makes sense, not that i agree or disagree with it, if i was his advisor i would have done the same thing.

Archaea · 01-11-2006, 01:04 AM

You're building strawmen.

Cite for me LHM's reason for the decision.

You can't.

Some posters attributed personal beliefs, but nobody showed anything as to why he did it, because he didn't disclose he reasoning, as well he shouldn't.

Whether the film is shown or not shown, it holds no interest for me. However, I'm in favor of a business's right to show what it wants to show. If such a film came along, and he pulled without issuing proclamations, he should have that rightl.

I'm basically against business being in politics; they should be in business for business sakes.

Show what you want. Go somewhere else to see what you want.

LHM never said it was out of moral reasons not to show it.

realtall · 01-11-2006, 01:34 AM

Hypocrisy is a word that gets so frequently used these day and is almost always used incorrectly. In regards to the movie situation, there are no facts available to support the contention that he does or says one thing in public and does, says, & believes another in private. That's because there were no reasons given to pull the movie. There is nothing left that can be construed as hypocritical. And yet people do it anyways.

So, what we are left with is a whole lot of conjecture. A lot of people who jump to conclusions with no basis in fact. People will talk, I guess, but this is past the point of getting old.

To me, this issue(?) is a non-starter. Larry can do whatever he wants with his theater.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtall

Hypocrisy is a word that gets so frequently used these day and is almost always used incorrectly. In regards to the movie situation, there are no facts available to support the contention that he does or says one thing in public and does, says, & believes another in private. That's because there were no reasons given to pull the movie. There is nothing left that can be construed as hypocritical. And yet people do it anyways.

So, what we are left with is a whole lot of conjecture. A lot of people who jump to conclusions with no basis in fact. People will talk, I guess, but this is past the point of getting old.

To me, this issue(?) is a non-starter. Larry can do whatever he wants with his theater.

Hmmm... Well, I guess I will take that as a non-response. I wasn't addressing the hypocrisy issue and I never argued that he couldn't LEGALLY do what he wants with his theater. I was attempting to debate the idea that his actions are beyond criticism.

realtall · 01-11-2006, 02:06 AM

Okay, then maybe this one will be more to your liking:

Quote:

Originally Posted by homeboy

Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a movie came along that featured a love story between a black man and a white woman and LHM decided to pull the movie as a result. Let's suppose he brought up some old LDS GA quotes about the evils of mixing races (yes, there are plenty out there - I am guessing grapevine has some of them memorized), hence it is a moral/religous issue. Do you think it would be fair to criticize him then? 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?

I find this analogy rather absurd as Larry Miller has issued absolutely no comments on his motives for pulling this movie. I just don't see the correlation. I could just argue your story independently but it seems rather pointless.

As far as whether or not its fair to criticize LM for pulling the movie I would think that its dependent entirely on each individual & their attitudes. Besides, fairness is rarely consided as far as issuing criticism is concerned. I don't believe that its 'fair' to criticise the man with so few facts available but that's my opinion.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

I think business wise for Larry H it makes sense. he is directed his theatres towards families, which is what 90% of marketing gurus in Utah would do. If he is showing that movie then families are going to come in and see lots of homosexuals attending the movie and the parents of these sheltered kids will get upset and complain (i am sure this has already happened) So larry needs to think long term do i piss off the families and anti-gays that have been seeing my movies for years, or piss off the handful of homosexuals? You choose the families every time (except maybe in San Franscisco). So maybe he loses a Ford Focus to a gay couple, but i guarantee he sells plenty of mini vans because of his decision.

Business wise it makes sense, not that i agree or disagree with it, if i was his advisor i would have done the same thing.

Well, I will agree with you on that. Reading all the gleeful comments on CB today I am willing to bet that he will get a short-term boost in business from the passionately anti-gay crowd. I find it a little hard to believe that he would have lost much business by showing the film, but we will never know.

On the other hand, pandering to the Gayle Ruszika types in our society as a way to make money doesn't earn my respect.

non sequitur · 01-11-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtall

I find this analogy rather absurd as Larry Miller has issued absolutely no comments on his motives for pulling this movie. I just don't see the correlation. I could just argue your story independently but it seems rather pointless.

Come on, let's get real. Everybody knows why LHM pulled this movie. He pulled it because he doesn't want to be associated with a gay movie. Let's not pretend that we don't know why he pulled the movie.

realtall · 01-11-2006, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtall

I find this analogy rather absurd as Larry Miller has issued absolutely no comments on his motives for pulling this movie. I just don't see the correlation. I could just argue your story independently but it seems rather pointless.

Come on, let's get real. Everybody knows why LHM pulled this movie. He pulled it because he doesn't want to be associated with a gay movie. Let's not pretend that we don't know why he pulled the movie.

I'm not pretending to not know why he pulled the movie. Pretending would be saying that you know why he pulled the movie. Was it a business decision? Was it a personal decision? Was it both? Was it neither? If I knew I would say but I don't. It seems like there are a whole lot of people who seem to know, though. I guess that they were in on the decision-making process more than I was.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-11-2006, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're building strawmen.

Cite for me LHM's reason for the decision.

You can't.

Some posters attributed personal beliefs, but nobody showed anything as to why he did it, because he didn't disclose he reasoning, as well he shouldn't.

Whether the film is shown or not shown, it holds no interest for me. However, I'm in favor of a business's right to show what it wants to show. If such a film came along, and he pulled without issuing proclamations, he should have that rightl.

I'm basically against business being in politics; they should be in business for business sakes.

Show what you want. Go somewhere else to see what you want.

LHM never said it was out of moral reasons not to show it.

Building a straw man is when one presents a lie as reality and then tears down that lie. I have explicitly stated that I am posing a hypothetical situation. This is not a straw man.

You (and everyone else so far) are avoiding my question. However, you are responding to it indirectly. You seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that a businessman should be able to do what he wants and no one should expect any reasoning or justification. I think such a position is indefensible. To make a stronger analogy, suppose Larry decided that he didn't want to show any movies that portrayed blacks in a positive light (bear with me, it is a hypothetical). Would you still hold to your dogma that "business is business"? I seriously doubt it.

And as for the issue of "no one knows LHM's reasons", that seems to be a bit of a dodge. We could certainly apply logic and list the most probable reasons:

1) Purely business

By catering to the Gayle Ruzicka types, he gets a boost in sales. Wise business move? Perhaps. Shameful? I think so.

2) Moral reasons

I am still waiting for someone to make a convincing argument why gay sex is more evil than illicit hetero sex. If it is not, pulling this show and keeping all of the others indicates bigotry against gays.

Other?

01-11-2006, 12:10 AM	#1
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Question on Larry H. Miller Decision I read all the "attaboys" today on CB directed to Larry H. Miller for his courageous efforts to stand up to the "homos" by refusing to show the gay cowboy movie. I won't argue the hypocrisy angle again since it has been beaten to death. I will also agree that LHM has every right to do what he has done. And it is certainly not "censorship" based on the correct definition of the term. However, quite a few posters implied that it is unfair to criticize LHM's decision since it is based on "moral convictions" and he is a private business man. Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a movie came along that featured a love story between a black man and a white woman and LHM decided to pull the movie as a result. Let's suppose he brought up some old LDS GA quotes about the evils of mixing races (yes, there are plenty out there - I am guessing grapevine has some of them memorized), hence it is a moral/religous issue. Do you think it would be fair to criticize him then? 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? By the way, I was going to post this on CB but while I was composing it, the big thread on this topic got deleted. I am guessing that a moderator got a little uneasy with some of the more outrageous comments that were being posted.

01-11-2006, 12:56 AM	#2
cougjunkie Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 5,741	I think business wise for Larry H it makes sense. he is directed his theatres towards families, which is what 90% of marketing gurus in Utah would do. If he is showing that movie then families are going to come in and see lots of homosexuals attending the movie and the parents of these sheltered kids will get upset and complain (i am sure this has already happened) So larry needs to think long term do i piss off the families and anti-gays that have been seeing my movies for years, or piss off the handful of homosexuals? You choose the families every time (except maybe in San Franscisco). So maybe he loses a Ford Focus to a gay couple, but i guarantee he sells plenty of mini vans because of his decision. Business wise it makes sense, not that i agree or disagree with it, if i was his advisor i would have done the same thing. __________________ LINCECUM!

01-11-2006, 01:04 AM	#3
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	You're building strawmen. Cite for me LHM's reason for the decision. You can't. Some posters attributed personal beliefs, but nobody showed anything as to why he did it, because he didn't disclose he reasoning, as well he shouldn't. Whether the film is shown or not shown, it holds no interest for me. However, I'm in favor of a business's right to show what it wants to show. If such a film came along, and he pulled without issuing proclamations, he should have that rightl. I'm basically against business being in politics; they should be in business for business sakes. Show what you want. Go somewhere else to see what you want. LHM never said it was out of moral reasons not to show it. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-11-2006, 01:34 AM	#4
realtall Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Krum, TX Posts: 891	Re: Question on Larry H. Miller Decision Hypocrisy is a word that gets so frequently used these day and is almost always used incorrectly. In regards to the movie situation, there are no facts available to support the contention that he does or says one thing in public and does, says, & believes another in private. That's because there were no reasons given to pull the movie. There is nothing left that can be construed as hypocritical. And yet people do it anyways. So, what we are left with is a whole lot of conjecture. A lot of people who jump to conclusions with no basis in fact. People will talk, I guess, but this is past the point of getting old. To me, this issue(?) is a non-starter. Larry can do whatever he wants with his theater.