• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hick Theater Chains Ban Fahrenheit 9-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

bionic77

Member
Manders said:
lol

michael moore owned

Actually I think he would be ecstatic about that. The more they ban it the more people are going to want to see it. Stupid conservatives will never learn though. If you ban it they will come.
 

belgurdo

Banned
rumsfeld.jpg


Excellent. You'll have your money by tomorrow morning, gentlemen
 

Manders

Banned
bionic77 said:
Actually I think he would be ecstatic about that. The more they ban it the more people are going to want to see it. Stupid conservatives will never learn though. If you ban it they will come.




riiiiiiiiiight.

think about that logically, how many people do you think would actually drive 30 miles to see a movie, compared to driving right up the street? probably not a lot, unless they're truly bleeding heart liberals.
 

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
For the most part, I think the type of people that wanted to see his movie were going to see it regardless of all this 'OMG it's rated R' and 'OMG some places are banning it' business.
 
PZOWNED OMG YSE

A theater chain, accounting for a negligable portion of the potential revenue, that wasn't even planned on being distributed to originally, has refused to show the film in an area comprised of individuals who're already unlikely candidates to see it.

Saying that people won't want to drive to another town is a bit puzzling. You'd think that if the town was small enough that it only had one major theater (they almost certainly wouldnt have multiple theaters of the same chain right beside each other, so you'd only have one theater per town refusing to show it, and they note that viewers would have to go to other towns to view it, excluding that there may have been another chain of theater in the town), that they'd be more than familiar with going out of there town for entertainment. In some instances, it may be dificult to venture out and find another city that is playing the movie. The thing is, towns that are so secluded from the rest of society that it proves to be a struggle just to find civilization are almost categorically small towns, with small populations. Not something of great concern.
 

aoi tsuki

Member
Yeah, people who want to see the movie will usually drive as far as they have to, especially when they're in an area where they're used to driving 30-60 minutes to go somewhere they want to go. That's the way it is here. It's not surprising to see it banned, but it's only going to increase demand and show just how much of a must-see movie it is.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Manders said:
lol

michael moore owned

I'd expect this making CNN will generate more interest, publicity and advertising for the movie that the money these few shitty theatres may have brought in.

As usual. Moore can't possibly get owned at this point. His creation has surpassed each any every expectation. Sorry if that emotionally/phycologically hurts you Manders. At this point, I don't think Moore would give a shit where its banned.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I was expecting this to happen in my area, but surprisingly it is playing at at least three different theatres here in north Mississippi. I'm not going to pay to see it, but I'm glad it's being shown for those who do.
 

ChrisReid

Member
Manders said:
think about that logically, how many people do you think would actually drive 30 miles to see a movie, compared to driving right up the street? probably not a lot, unless they're truly bleeding heart liberals.

It IS logical. See, nobody in a conservative hick town is gonna watch the movie anyway. But if a conservative hick town bans F9/11.. and it gets reported on CNN.. that's free advertising that will compel plenty of moderate Americans all across the country to go see it.
 
Jesus fucking Christ, Manders, do you think that you could actually, you know, try backing up your statements with just the tiniest bit of fact? How in the fuck is publicity of ANY sort going to hurt Michael Moore or F9/11?
 

GLoK

Member
Manders said:
no it's not logical.

it hurts the movie more than it helps it.

No it doesn't

See, you guys are going about this all wrong, when dealing with a moron/joke character it's far more logical and time efficient to just say "you're wrong" and not bother with any actual fact catching.. because you already fucking KNOW he won't.
 

Manders

Banned
It hurts because most people don't care that the movie got banned at a few theaters. The people that do care are the people who live in that area and planned on seeing it. Now they won't see it. Now can you see how it hurts? Hello, Mcfly? Is anyone home?
 

bionic77

Member
Manders said:
It hurts because most people don't care that the movie got banned at a few theaters. The people that do care are the people who live in that area and planned on seeing it. Now they won't see it. Now can you see how it hurts? Hello, Mcfly? Is anyone home?

Make like a tree and scram you moron.
 

Manders

Banned
Well we'll see who's right after this weekend.

If the movie makes more than it did last weekend, you guys are right and I am wrong.

If it makes less, I was right.

I'm betting on the latter.
 
My hick-town isn't playing it, and the town was featured in the movie: Tappahannock, Virginia. Then again, the movie theatre here is in a former Rose's and only has five screens... but still, I wanted to have the luxury of driving only ten minutes to see it. Most people here are dumb as dirt anyway, so Soul Plane and White Chicks were probably better candidates to make money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom