From: tmohler+@cs.cmu.edu (Tim Mohler)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Why X Isn't Making Money
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:30:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1993Jan2.170246.16610@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <C077nx.1z8.1@cs.cmu.edu> tmohler+@cs.cmu.edu (Tim Mohler) writes:
>>In article <76028@apple.apple.COM> mattm@Apple.COM (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>>I think, however, that the failure of X to perfrom well is
>>>a surprise to a lot of people (myself included, actually).
>>
>>Not to me. About half of the people I've talked to about X said
>>they didn't want to watch "three hours of being told how evil
>>white men are."
>>
>>I think that is insensitive, and downright stupid myself, but

>Certainly "insensitive" and "stupid" sound very "correct" when dealing
>with social issues, but for people who were around when Malcolm was
>alive, much of what they heard from him was exactly that "white people
>are evil."  You can lay that blame on Malcolm, or the press or whatever,
>but that's the message they received.  If anything is "insensitive" and
>"stupid", it's not realizing that comunication does not necessarily
>improve when slander and general name-calling constitutes a significant
>portion of it.

Good lord, we can stop frothing now.

I called the attitudes that I saw stupid and insenstitve. They are
stupid, because they were based on no knowledge of either the movie
or the man the movie is about.

They are insensitive to racial issues as well. I feel a mutual
understanding of racial issues is important to this country's
well-being. I think that more white people trying to understand why
Malcolm X was an important figure is a step in the right direction.
Dismissing Malcolm as merely a hate-monger is insensitive.

>It's an effective PC cop-out to call anyone that disagrees with you
>"insensitive", but it is just a cop-out, and may very be an example of
>what folks that give Lee problems over budget have reacted to.  And
>that knee-jerk action and reaction does little good in the long run.

Oh, shut up about PC already. I didn't use the word. I didn't call
anyone racist. I didn't even tell people to go see the movie.

>>I don't doubt that these attitudes have a fairly strong hold
>>on a large portion of the movie-going audience.
>
>Not wanting to be criticized?  Yes, that would be true of most people.
>Rather insensitive not to realize that.

What is wrong with being criticized pray tell? Can't you take it?
Ya gonna yell "PC!" at anyone who criticizes you?

>You have discretionary income and choose to use it to see a movie
>that you have more information about, and judge to be a "better
>bet" for a nice evening?  Incredibly presumptuous, I think, to
>tell people what movie to see, and call them stupid if they
>disagree.  After all, liking a movie is somewhat subjective.

What the hell are you babbling about? I never said "better bet."
I never told anyone to see the movie.

>>Not to bring in a conspiracy or anything, but when I went to
>>see X, it had been out for only two weeks, but had already been
>>moved to the smallest screen in the theater. I wondered if
>>perhaps the theater-owners had pegged the movie as a
>>"minority" film. If this is true, perhaps there are some theater
>>owners who decided not to show X, thinking it would not have
>>a wide appeal.
>
>It's possible.  But it's also possible that theater owners would like
>to maximize their income, and that X only required a small screen
>due to its draw at that particular theater.  

Goddam. As if that wasn't what I was saying.

Really, engage your brain before your mouth next time.

Tim
From: gorrindo@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Sue Gorrindo)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:10:26 GMT
Subject: Re: movies with older man/younger woman
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server