Death of a president, Controversial new movie. Options

[sakaitone]

I couldn't find any topic on this and I didn't really think that this topic should go into entertainment because it's more of a debate but if you think otherwise, you can move it.

Two major U.S. cinema chains say they will not show a controversial new movie that depicts the assassination of President George W. Bush, while the film's distributor defended it as a thoughtful political thriller.

A third major chain said it was undecided on whether to show "Death of a President."

The movie is scheduled to open in U.S. on October 27 and its backers said they are booking it into many regional venues and art houses, despite being shunned by the large chains.

The fictional film is told like a documentary that tracks the political drama behind an investigation into Bush's murder in October 2007. It has raised a ruckus because it uses digital technology to depict Bush being gunned down.

Regal Entertainment Group, the No. 1 U.S. cinema operator with more than 6,300 screens in 40 states, will not show the movie because of its subject matter, Regal spokesman Dick Westerling said.

"We do not feel it is appropriate to portray the future assassination of a president, therefore we do not intend to program this film at any of our cinemas," he said.

Westerling said Regal has received "numerous phone calls and e-mails" supporting the company and even if the film became a hit in other venues, Regal would stand by its decision.

Cinemark USA, which operates roughly 2,500 screens in 34 states, told show business newspaper The Hollywood Reporter it would not screen the film.

A spokeswoman for AMC Entertainment, which runs 5,600 screens, told Reuters her company had yet to make a decision.

The film, which was directed by Britain's Gabriel Range, made its debut at September's Toronto International Film Festival to a barrage of media coverage. It won an award from critics and was acquired for U.S. distribution by Newmarket Films.

It is scheduled to air on British television next week.

Richard Abramowitz, who is consulting with Newmarket on the film's distribution, said "Death of a President" has been booked into more than 100 venues and he expects that number to rise as he expands his sales effort into other regions.

"In certain cases, there has been a rush to judgement," Abramowitz said. "The fact is the film is not about what people are suggesting it is about. It is a thoughtful film and a political thriller."

Typically, a film like "Death of a President" would play mostly in art houses but increasingly the major movie megaplexes such as those run by Regal, Cinemark and AMC have begun screening low-budget and independently made movies.

"Death of a President" is not Newmarket's first controversial film. In 2004, it released Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." ...

- Death of a president, showbiz report

and
a trailer of the movie =Death of a president trailer

plus a plot-spoiler article=Death of a president-wikipedia article

Do you think this movie should be aired in the U.S. or should people shun such a movie?

[marzipan]

Ohhh yes....I've heard of this.

It looks interesting, in a way, but I don't think it's appropriate to air. I mean..the future death of a president? Doesn't seem right to me. It's intriguing, since it says the movie is being supported and booked.

[sakaitone]

Don't you think we should have a right to watch this if we want to? How can they shun the movie when there are people who might want to watch it?

[marzipan]

Well, if people want to watch it, then why not? My opinion is that the movie seems a bit....well, I can't find the right word. I wouldn't really want to watch it. When I first heard of the movie coming out, I was a bit shocked. But if it looks popular with people, then they would want to air it, right? For $$$

[technicolour]

We allow comedians to make fun of the president, don't we? We allow stories to be published about how much he sucks. No one has stopped Michael Moore yet, and countless other people.

Why wouldn't we be able to see this in the US?

[OhMyAnniee]

They should just put this out on DVD. If people want to see it, they'll rent it or buy it.

[demolished]

Where's our freedom of speech, press, articles, or something?

I think the movie is a bit extreme and offensive to Bush. Whatever. I don't think Bush should be a character in a movie. They could have used another name and unlike identity.

Blah. Bush failed to keep his promised. Should he deserve a punishment and allow the movie to be spread nationwide?

Really, I would love to see that movie no matter what.

[pandamonium]

yea i dont see why they shouldnt release the movie. michael moore already released his, and i saw it.

[*Uronacid*]

It's not bush who is making the descition.... it's the theater chains. A film about the assasination of the president is deffinitly more controversial than Michal Moore's movie.

Many people are just offended by the fact that a movie is being produced about the death of the president being used to make lots of money.

[Kontroll]

Where's our freedom of speech, press, articles, or something?

I think the movie is a bit extreme and offensive to Bush. Whatever. I don't think Bush should be a character in a movie. They could have used another name and unlike identity.

Blah. Bush failed to keep his promised. Should he deserve a punishment and allow the movie to be spread nationwide?

Really, I would love to see that movie no matter what.

What exactly would his promise be? I love how people hold the president up to be some god like figure. Oh, the president made a mistake, we should start bashing him! YEAH! It's ridiculous. It seems to be some sort of trend to make our president look like an idiot. Does anyone realize that he went to Yale. I'm not sure if you know, but it's not the easiest school to get into, I'm sure. I think that you're all just idiots for thinking that Bush is a retard and that he doesn't know what he's doing. I bet you're all like, 'Well, I would have done this and that, unlike Bush.' Would you really? I love people blame Bush for 9/11. They say that he knew that it was going to happen because memos were being made about it. But do you think he's an idiot? Yeah, terrorists are going to bomb the world trade center President Bush. 'Well, uh huh that's great Condi, I'll just put those good fer nuthin' Muslimists in my axis of evil. I'm gonna go bike ridin'.'

SHUT UP! NO BODY CARES THAT YOU THINK PRESIDENT BUSH IS A RETARD.

And as for the movie. Yeah, it should be aired...but only at the theatres discretion.

It is offensive to the President, but I'm sure all these people already bashing Bush on TV aren't.

The only reason people see Bush as an idiot is because of the media. It's very liberal. It seems that the country is very against Bush, but actually most of the country is Republican. Ipso facto, that's how Bush got in the White House. makes sense doesn't it? Thought so.


But yeah, that movie actually looks pretty cool.

Hey, Josh what was that other movie we saw about if the North never won during the Civil War we would still have slaves? What was the name of it?

[kimmytree]

Eh, I wonder if it'll actually make it into the states. If it ever does, i'll be first in line to see it.

Even though I dont really care for Bush, I dont think it should be something that makes it into theatres. No matter who the leader was being killed in the movie.

[demolished]

What exactly would his promise be? I love how people hold the president up to be some god like figure. Oh, the president made a mistake, we should start bashing him! YEAH! It's ridiculous. It seems to be some sort of trend to make our president look like an idiot. Does anyone realize that he went to Yale. I'm not sure if you know, but it's not the easiest school to get into, I'm sure. I think that you're all just idiots for thinking that Bush is a retard and that he doesn't know what he's doing. I bet you're all like, 'Well, I would have done this and that, unlike Bush.' Would you really? I love people blame Bush for 9/11. They say that he knew that it was going to happen because memos were being made about it. But do you think he's an idiot? Yeah, terrorists are going to bomb the world trade center President Bush. 'Well, uh huh that's great Condi, I'll just put those good fer nuthin' Muslimists in my axis of evil. I'm gonna go bike ridin'.'

SHUT UP! NO BODY CARES THAT YOU THINK PRESIDENT BUSH IS A RETARD.

And as for the movie. Yeah, it should be aired...but only at the theatres discretion.

It is offensive to the President, but I'm sure all these people already bashing Bush on TV aren't.

The only reason people see Bush as an idiot is because of the media. It's very liberal. It seems that the country is very against Bush, but actually most of the country is Republican. Ipso facto, that's how Bush got in the White House. makes sense doesn't it? Thought so.


But yeah, that movie actually looks pretty cool.

Hey, Josh what was that other movie we saw about if the North never won during the Civil War we would still have slaves? What was the name of it?

Did you had fun bitching at me with your whole post?

[marzipan]

I think the movie is a bit extreme and offensive to Bush.

yess. That's what I mean. extreme. Yes, plenty of people write and criticize Bush. There's nothing wrong with that. That's freedom of speech. I just think it's a bit extreme to be filming the assassination of George Bush.

[NoSex]

yess. That's what I mean. extreme. Yes, plenty of people write and criticize Bush. There's nothing wrong with that. That's freedom of speech. I just think it's a bit extreme to be filming the assassination of George Bush.

"Extreme" or not, it's still protected by our freedom of speech.
I'm all for free "extreme" expression, otherwise, we may never be vastly open to change as a society.

[orgasm]

This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government's not banning the movie, is it? The filmmakers still made it, didn't they?

It's the theater's own decision not to show the movie, which they have every right to do. If you want to see it that bad, go to where it's playing at.

As for my take on the actual making of the movie...

It would be hypocritical for me to say that filming the future assasination of a president is too violent, because hey... I've seen way more violence than that. But it's the thought of doing something like that. I wouldn't feel right watching the future assasination of anybody, much less our president.

It's a statement, yeah, but singling out one particular person and having them gunned out in a movie is a little too much like a death threat. Why not make a president to represent what Bush stands for and kill him? I think a symbol would be a lot more affective than filming the actual, and current, president being killed.

My opinion.

[NoSex]

This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government's not banning the movie, is it? The filmmakers still made it, didn't they?

It's the theater's own decision not to show the movie, which they have every right to do. If you want to see it that bad, go to where it's playing at.

Well, of course. But, it still, clearly has to do with freedom of speech, that it's allowed to be made and such. I don't think anyone is saying that it is being banned or anything.

As for my take on the actual making of the movie...

It would be hypocritical for me to say that filming the future assasination of a president is too violent, because hey... I've seen way more violence than that. But it's the thought of doing something like that. I wouldn't feel right watching the future assasination of anybody, much less our president.

It's a statement, yeah, but singling out one particular person and having them gunned out in a movie is a little too much like a death threat. Why not make a president to represent what Bush stands for and kill him? I think a symbol would be a lot more affective than filming the actual, and current, president being killed.

My opinion.

I think it is highly more effective as a mockumentary, it brings a level of realism symbols could not invoke. Not to mention, it's meant to be "shocking and controversial," what better way? It's just going to be a sensationalist mess, I'm sure.

[orgasm]

Well, of course. But, it still, clearly has to do with freedom of speech, that it's allowed to be made and such. I don't think anyone is saying that it is being banned or anything.

I think it is highly more effective as a mockumentary, it brings a level of realism symbols could not invoke. Not to mention, it's meant to be "shocking and controversial," what better way? It's just going to be a sensationalist mess, I'm sure.

Hm. Skimming through the thread, I thought I read something like "Where's our freedom of speech?" Maybe not. Or maybe I misinterpreted it. But whatever, seems like our freedom of speech is still intact so, hooray!

Yeah, it's shocking and controversial, and yeah, it'll be affective for all it's worth. I just don't think it's right to personally zero in on our president while he's still in term. Why can't we wait for him to be dead? Or at least out of office?

Are we trying to send a message to the world or to him, personally?

I guess questions like this are always brought up when somebody does something so controversial and sort of unheard of. I really don't have anything against the movie, myself... I think I'm just swimming in the middle ground of wanting to watch the movie for what it has to say and being against the movie because of the natural respect I have for our president as a person.

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

.. This movie is going to give people ideas..

At this thought I can only laugh inside.

[NoSex]

Yeah, it's shocking and controversial, and yeah, it'll be affective for all it's worth. I just don't think it's right to personally zero in on our president while he's still in term. Why can't we wait for him to be dead? Or at least out of office?

Eh, I don't really see how it is wrong. I could really give two shits.

I guess questions like this are always brought up when somebody does something so controversial and sort of unheard of. I really don't have anything against the movie, myself... I think I'm just swimming in the middle ground of wanting to watch the movie for what it has to say and being against the movie because of the natural respect I have for our president as a person.

Natural respect? Never heard of the stuff.
As for respect for the current president/administration, they really havn't earned it. So, f**k em'.

Aren't I so eloquent, as of late?

[Kontroll]

"Extreme" or not, it's still protected by our freedom of speech.
I'm all for free "extreme" expression, otherwise, we may never be vastly open to change as a society.

I have a question for you Acid Bath. I'm not mad or bashing you, I'm just looking for your opinion. You say that you are for 'extreme' freedom of speech. Do you feel it's right if I wanted to call a retarded person 'Retarded'? Or a small person, a midget? What do you think about that?

My view is that it's crazy how people say that it's wrong to call people that. It's our choice. I understand that people have feelings, but if there are people out there telling us that we can't say that, then isn't that supressing our freedom of speech?

[orgasm]

^

There's a difference between extreme freedom of speech and insulting somebody because you can.

Usually, extremists are looking to change society for the better, make a statement, that kind of thing.

My view is that it's crazy how people say that it's wrong to call people that. It's our choice. I understand that people have feelings, but if there are people out there telling us that we can't say that, then isn't that supressing our freedom of speech?

Your examples of a retard and a midget are a little mild, so I'll go with racism. Is it wrong to call a black person a nigger? An Asian a chink?
I guess you have to think about that. Personally, I think it's wrong depending what context you use it in. Usually, when people say things like that, it's meant to be insulting and if you're asking if it's wrong to insult somebody using racial slurs, I'd say "yes".

But there's no law that says you can't. Nobody's FORCING you to not say those things. So technically,... your freedom of speech isn't being suppressed.

[pandamonium]

Personally i dont think it is all about freedom of speech, i guess people are just offended by how the way people are critizing bush by making him shot to death, so they just dont wanna support the director or whoever made the movie.

or maybe the owner of cinemark is a fellow republican?

[NoSex]

I have a question for you Acid Bath. I'm not mad or bashing you, I'm just looking for your opinion. You say that you are for 'extreme' freedom of speech. Do you feel it's right if I wanted to call a retarded person 'Retarded'? Or a small person, a midget? What do you think about that?

My view is that it's crazy how people say that it's wrong to call people that. It's our choice. I understand that people have feelings, but if there are people out there telling us that we can't say that, then isn't that supressing our freedom of speech?

I don't really think that calling someone a harsh name is inherently wrong. Certainly not. However, once we begin to consistently harass an individual by means of verbal abuse, that is certainly wrong. Further, that kind of speech is not protected, simply because it becomes an infringment on the rights of the individual it is subjected to.

All the rights of the individual must be respected, but simple offense is not a reason to silence another.

[demolished]

does, "extreme" means, beyond the "border"?

[NoSex]

does, "extreme" means, beyond the "border"?

Main Entry: extreme
Pronunciation: ik-'strEm
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin extremus, superlative of exter, exterus being on the outside -- more at EXTERIOR
1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL <went on an extreme diet> c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>

Not exactly. What would the "border" be anyways?
I guess I could assume the border would be the point at which "free speech" infringes on the rights of others. If that is the case, then, no. Extreme does not mean beyond the "border," in this case.

[tooeffingcrazy]

They should just put this out on DVD. If people want to see it, they'll rent it or buy it.

So what are you saying? Everyone is forced to go in the movie theatre?

This movie is probably made by Democrats, and will only be viewed by Democrats. They don't like Bush's point of views or decisions. Me, being one of them, highly disagree with everything he says or does. I wouldn't mind seeing him killed. I don't find this offensive, because i find George Bush a joke.

The best part is, I love to see those Republicans whine and protest over this movie. It's amusing.

The media is full of liberals, you can't stop them from making anything. There has been 2 George Bush related movies already, and I can't wait until theres more.

[sakaitone]

So what are you saying? Everyone is forced to go in the movie theatre?

This movie is probably made by Democrats, and will only be viewed by Democrats. They don't like Bush's point of views or decisions.

The movie was made by british film makers, unless they have earned citizen in the U.S. they can't be called democrats and etc.

[twinkles6801]

I think people hate him so much because he is keeping this war going on. Its crazy how me and my friends get ambushed at the mall by recruiters. I am NOT going into the military, its just crazy! I seen that 9/11 movie, i cried for all the people in iraq that did nothing worng, but have to deal with this. could you imagine if they were to retaliate over here? we would be devistated!