LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!

[sirkickyass]

You just countered a C- rating with a D - %. Just saying.

I'm not countering anything, I have no idea if the movie is good. It turns out I haven't seen it. Neither have you. I have no personal stake in whether or not it's a good documentary. I'm going to watch it largely because we've talked about it so damn much.

All that said, I was using it to show that people are polarized about the movie.

Also I think you're misinterpreting how the tomato meter works if you're trying to compare it to grades. It's an apples and oranges comparison because they're completely different methodologies. On the yahoo website, 5 out of 12 people rated the movie positively. That would give a tomato meter percentage of 42%. Using your logic, that would mean that Yahoo is in fact giving it an F rather than a C-. Since the grade displayed is "C-" that should make you question your assertion here.

 

[TroutBum]

As an avid supporter of equal rights for EVERYONE, I am finding it harder and harder to support this garbage. I used to be a fan of Skellington before he turned into this current, "Woe is me, blame the world for my issues." garbage that some members of the GLBT like to throw around. Thankfully, the majority of gay people I know can't stand people like Skellington or movies like this. Here's a newsflash for you idiots, you're not changing anyones mind, but you ARE making some of your supporters pissed.

 

[The Thriller]

To be fair, what else was the Deseret News going to write? "The people who own our newspaper are, as the movie portrays, total ********."

Given that the movie literally opened today, I think it's a little unfair to judge how successful it is (even by the modest standards of documentaries) before 3:00 PM.

The movie is only in 16 theaters right now. Frankly, I'll be stunned if it breaks the $500,000 mark or even the $250,000 mark.

I'll, however, watch it in my living room this evening on On Demand for $6.99.

I understand that it just barely came out, however, everything I've read about this movie seems to indicate that it's a bomb.

Furthermore, I think just automatically assuming that Jeff Vice, the Dnews movie critic would give it a bad rating because of its content is pretty ignorant. Jeff Vice has given great reviews to many movies that have gone directly against church principles and have even been banned from showing at several theatres around here. Some examples:

Brokeback Mountain, a movie about homosexuals, nearly a perfect rating.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700004069/Brokeback-Mountain.html

Yet, this movie was banned by theaters here in Utah.

I couldn't find a link, but as I remember he gave Zack and Miri Make a Porno a very good rating as well.

He gave The Hangover 3 out of 4 stars

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700005169/The-Hangover.html

Borat 3 out of 4

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ke-Benefit-Glorious-Nation-of-Kazakhstan.html

So if maintaining his job depended on upholding "the church" and "church standards" then I doubt he would have given those movies such high ratings and this movie mentioned in this thread such a bad one. I also seem to remember Jeff Vice giving bad reviews to movies such as "The Singles Ward" and "The Other Side of Heaven."

So if making the church look good while condemning other movies against church values was his job, Vice would have been canned a long time ago.

In fact, if one objectively looks at Vice's reviews, I'm very confident that he gives high ratings to movies that are clearly against the values that the paper.

So while I'm not declaring Vice a perfect movie critic, I do however don't believe that him giving an automatic F for this movie is given only because of where he works at. I think we should give Vice a little more credit than that.

The yahoo movie reviews had only 11 written reviews but has over 50 ratings giving it an overall C-.

I don't intend on watching this movie, mostly because I have better things to do. However, even if I didn't, the reviews of this movie have been anything but positive. This might change given the short time frame that it's been out for, but I doubt it. I look forward to your review of it kicky.

 

[KatieMCR]

I couldn't help but get a laugh when reading this review and then remembering this thread...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041139/8-The-Mormon-Proposition-is-one-sided-and-inept.html

And boy, sounds like this movie is making a killing on yahoo movies. Even the member views indicate that this movie sucks.

https://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810129074/user

I'm not seeing the boosted ticket sells inspired by the fines levied on the LDS church that the author of this thread seemed to indicate.

To be fair, what else was the Deseret News going to write? "The people who own our newspaper are, as the movie portrays, total ********."

Given that the movie literally opened today, I think it's a little unfair to judge how successful it is (even by the modest standards of documentaries) before 3:00 PM.

The movie is only in 16 theaters right now. Frankly, I'll be stunned if it breaks the $500,000 mark or even the $250,000 mark.

I'll, however, watch it in my living room this evening on On Demand for $6.99.

Kicky already beat me with a response. I'll just echo what he said. Seriously did you not consider the source of that review? I read it, and Jeff Vice has clearly not seen the movie. He got so many things wrong in that "review". He just printed something that would make his church owned employer happy. Read the comments to see responses from Reed Cowan and Steven Greeenstreet. I have now lost most of the small amount of respect I had for Mr. Vice. This was the most biased garbage non-review I've ever read. I won't trust any of his reviews from now on.

Kicky I'll be very interested to know what you think after you've seen this. Please do come post your thoughts here after you've seen it.

As an avid supporter of equal rights for EVERYONE, I am finding it harder and harder to support this garbage. I used to be a fan of Skellington before he turned into this current, "Woe is me, blame the world for my issues." garbage that some members of the GLBT like to throw around. Thankfully, the majority of gay people I know can't stand people like Skellington or movies like this. Here's a newsflash for you idiots, you're not changing anyones mind, but you ARE making some of your supporters pissed.

Not that I care what you think of me, but you're wrong. I'm not "woe is me" about anything. I have made my position clear multiple times. I also would appreciate not being referred to as "Skellington" anymore. I changed my name for a reason. Now that I've made that clear, I will ignore any further references to me as a "boy".

One last comment for now. Here is an actual review that was posted in a local paper by a critic who actually seems like they have seen the movie. https://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/ci_15319697

One more thing to add. Conservative bloggers have rallied their followers to post negative reviews about the movie all over the internet. None of these people have actually seen the movie. You can't always trust everything you see online. My suggestion would be to read actual written reviews from people who have likely actually seen the movie. That is the most fair way of judging it.

 

[The Thriller]

Kicky already beat me with a response. I'll just echo what he said. Seriously did you not consider the source of that review? I read it, and Jeff Vice has clearly not seen the movie. He got so many things wrong in that "review". He just printed something that would make his church owned employer happy. Read the comments to see responses from Reed Cowan and Steven Greeenstreet. I have now lost most of the small amount of respect I had for Mr. Vice. This was the most biased garbage non-review I've ever read. I won't trust any of his reviews from now on.

You seriously believe that Jeff Vice, a film critic, wrote a review without actually watching the movie? Do you have any evidence to support this outrageous claim? You're essentially blasting a movie critic for actually doing his job, CRITIQUING THE FILM. What you're basically saying is, "Anyone that gives this movie a good review, has seen it and is clearly objective and doesn't have any agenda. While anyone that doesn't like this movie hasn't seen it, isn't doing their job, isn't objective, and is trying to promote their anti-gay agenda."

To me, you're going off the deep end.

As shown above in my previous post, Vice hasn't exactly shown a bias against homosexual or otherwise inappropriate films for church members.

I think we may just need to agree to disagree on this one. Believe what you want. I also find it pretty hypocritical that you're accusing Vice of having an agenda.

 

[KatieMCR]

You seriously believe that Jeff Vice, a film critic, wrote a review without actually watching the movie? Do you have any evidence to support this outrageous claim? You're essentially blasting a movie critic for actually doing his job, CRITIQUING THE FILM. What you're basically saying is, "Anyone that gives this movie a good review, has seen it and is clearly objective and doesn't have any agenda. While anyone that doesn't like this movie hasn't seen it, isn't doing their job, isn't objective, and is trying to promote their anti-gay agenda."

To me, you're going off the deep end.

As shown above in my previous post, Vice hasn't exactly shown a bias against homosexual or otherwise inappropriate films for church members.

I think we may just need to agree to disagree on this one. Believe what you want. I also find it pretty hypocritical that you're accusing Vice of having an agenda.

Yet again you completely miss the point. Did you bother to look at the comments on that review? There's a reason I directed you to read those comments. It explains why people think Jeff Vice hasn't actually seen the movie. He made completely false statements about the movie. Here's an example since you can't be bothered to read the comments:

Also, it's never stated whether the filmmakers tried to get LDS Church officials' input. Which is a pretty glaring omission.

FALSE!! It is stated very clearly throughout the movie that they made multiple attempts to contact the church for comments. They were repeatedly turned away.

Why would I trust anything in his review after making such glaringly false statements? Again I have actually seen the movie. I saw it at Sundance. I would know that his statement was false. Unless you have seen the movie yourself, you can't back up your opinions in that same regard. I challenge you to see the movie for yourself, and share your thoughts.

 

[sirkickyass]

I understand that it just barely came out, however, everything I've read about this movie seems to indicate that it's a bomb.

I don't think anyone expects it to have box office success. It's a documentary. It's on 16 screens. It's about a niche issue. If it makes $250,000 during the course of its brief theater run that will be a raging success.

If you're referring to quality rather than success in describing it as a bomb I would suggest you simply haven't cast your net very wide. Rottentomatoes features multiple positive reviews. I think claiming that it's being universally panned is disingenuous and calls into credibility the motivation behind the assessment. It certainly requires selectivity in what you're looking at.

The reality is that the reviews are mixed and polarized.

Furthermore, I think just automatically assuming that Jeff Vice, the Dnews movie critic would give it a bad rating because of its content is pretty ignorant.

While I've been accused of being many things on the board, ignorant is a new one.

Regardless of Jeff Vice's general credentials in and of themselves, which I haven't called into issue, the guy still has an editor. The paper is still owned by the church, and the documentary directly attacks the paper's owner.

Let's put it this way: Is there another movie reviewer employed by a newspaper or reviewing entity in the entire country who could be said to be as interested in the success or failure of the movie as Jeff Vice? I think answer is pretty clearly no.

As a result, using his review as a piece of evidence is sort of suspect.

Jeff Vice has given great reviews to many movies that have gone directly against church principles and have even been banned from showing at several theatres around here.

Being "against church principles" and attacking the church directly are two different things. The success of Zach and Miri make a porno doesn't directly interfere with the LDS church's public image. I'm sorry, these aren't comparable examples.

Also a perfect score to Brokeback Mountain? Now I know he's a bad film reviewer. That movie was boring.

I look forward to your review of it kicky.

Now I might not get to it tonight because one of my coworkers is trying to get me go drinking at a dive bar. But definitely some time this weekend.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't think anyone expects it to have box office success. It's a documentary. It's on 16 screens. It's about a niche issue. If it makes $250,000 during the course of its brief theater run that will be a raging success.

If you're referring to quality rather than success in describing it as a bomb I would suggest you simply haven't cast your net very wide. Rottentomatoes features multiple positive reviews. I think claiming that it's being universally panned is disingenuous and calls into credibility the motivation behind the assessment. It certainly requires selectivity in what you're looking at.

The reality is that the reviews are mixed and polarized.

I was referring to quality of the film. Reviews will be mixed and polarized, you're right.

While I've been accused of being many things on the board, ignorant is a new one.

Regardless of Jeff Vice's general credentials in and of themselves, which I haven't called into issue, the guy still has an editor. The paper is still owned by the church, and the documentary directly attacks the paper's owner.

Let's put it this way: Is there another movie reviewer employed by a newspaper or reviewing entity in the entire country who could be said to be as interested in the success or failure of the movie as Jeff Vice? I think answer is pretty clearly no.

As a result, using his review as a piece of evidence is sort of suspect.

I apologize, but I wasn't directly calling you ignorant, but just the assumption that because of Vice's position his review of this film is tainted any more than other film critics is ignorant. Why would he need to pan a movie for a newspaper whose subscribers are most likely Mormon and won't watch/enjoy this movie anyway? Hell, why even review it? He could have passed this movie by and probably 99.9% of readers wouldn't have noticed.
What I'm trying to say is, why does one assume that Vice is purposely giving this movie a bad rating? The Dnews hasn't shown to pressure him into giving good reviews for lds movies (or movies made by lds film makers) and clearly hasn't shown pressure into making him give bad reviews for "evil" movies.
While I do admit, few if any, films have directly attacked the LDS church on such a level as this one (so you have a good point there). But then, why would Vice even review this film especially given the readership of this paper?

Here's another one, have you seen this movie? Religulous? How accurate is Vice, just out of curiosity? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700004997/Religulous.html

Let me state that I'm not a real big fan of Vice either. I usually go to other websites for movie reviews.

Now I might not get to it tonight because one of my coworkers is trying to get me go drinking at a dive bar. But definitely some time this weekend.

I look forward to it.

 

[KatieMCR]

Here's another one, have you seen this movie? Religulous? How accurate is Vice, just out of curiosity? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700004997/Religulous.html

Let me state that I'm not a real big fan of Vice either. I usually go to other websites for movie reviews.

Haha!!! This guy needs to come up with new material!

Taken from his Religulous review:0

Instead, it only proves one thing: that Michael Moore is no longer the least subtle documentarian working in film today.

Taken from his 8: TMP review:

OK, Michael Moore may no longer be the least subtle documentary filmmaker currently working today.

 

[The Thriller]

Yet again you completely miss the point.

I don't think so. Up until after I posted you hadn't provided any examples. Sorry, but as much as I try I cannot read minds or tell the future.

Here's an example since you can't be bothered to read the comments: Also, it's never stated whether the filmmakers tried to get LDS Church officials' input. Which is a pretty glaring omission.
FALSE!! It is stated very clearly throughout the movie that they made multiple attempts to contact the church for comments. They were repeatedly turned away.

This is a stretch in my mind. What is Vice referring to? It's never stated whether the filmmakers tried to get LDS Church Officials input... "It" in this sentence could be a million things. Their position on gay marriage, their position on prop 8, baptism (whether homosexuals can or should be baptized, whether homosexuality is a choice or not, what the "breaking point" is for homosexuals since probably some church members are homosexuals but haven't come out of the closet, financial issues, voting, etc. "It" is too broad.

As far as the LDS church turning them away, I guess someone will need to explain what they declined to answer about. Again, this issue is too broad. I don't know what the questions were, the context, what exactly Vice is referring to, or what the filmmakers were trying to prove.

I challenge you to see the movie for yourself, and share your thoughts.

Maybe I will. I'm always open to watching new things and broadening my horizons. As someone that has lived in Utah for most of their life, I for one don't like to be labeled as someone who has their opinions set in stone.

 

[The Thriller]

Haha!!! This guy needs to come up with new material!

Taken from his Religulous review:0

Taken from his 8: TMP review:

Maybe he has a template? LOL.

I think Michael Moore is an easy target. He'd be the first documentary filmmaker to come to my mind.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Maybe he has a template? LOL.

I think Michael Moore is an easy target. He'd be the first documentary filmmaker to come to my mind.

First? You're more into filmography than I am. He'd the the only one to come to my mind.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Reed Cowan's (supposedly) reaction via the comments section:

Jeff. Are you a journalist? Seriously! You obviously didn't see the film, much the same as the church you work for admits they have not. We did solicit the participation of the LDS leaders and we do show in the film that they repeatedly turned us down. We play a phone interview with LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah for Heaven's sake. I invite you to be a journalist and not a sniper for the church who writes your paycheck. So so disappointed in you. See the film. Then have your say. it is CLEAR you did not see the film before reviewing it. If you did, you obviously had extended pop corn/bathroom breaks and missed that which you write about. Your readers might also be interested to know that after my co-director Steven Greenstreet questioned your review you deleted him on facebook. Tremendously sad.

 

[sirkickyass]

I apologize, but I wasn't directly calling you ignorant, but just the assumption that because of Vice's position his review of this film is tainted any more than other film critics is ignorant.

Why? The measure is relative instead of absolute. Vice's paper is owned by the organization that is being attacked. The Deseret News, like it or not, has more of an interest in how the film is perceived than, for example, the Los Angeles Times.

There is a significantly greater risk that Vice is subject to editorial control with respect to reviewing this particular film than any other newspaper in the country. It's not specific to Vice. If the church owned a newspaper in Boise, that paper's movie reviewer would be subject to the same scrutiny.

Think about it this way: it's difficult to take the review at face value for the same reason that it's hard to take a review of the film by a rabid anti-mormon seriously.

I believe that Vice does his best to review films from an objective standpoint rather than a mormon standpoint. That objectivity, however, has to be harder to maintain in this instance than it is when reviewing Brokeback Mountain.

Hell, why even review it? He could have passed this movie by and probably 99.9% of readers wouldn't have noticed.

This argument cuts both ways. Why review it? Maybe to discredit a movie that attacks the paper's owners? Frankly, the review reads more like an argument against the viewpoint presented by the film rather than a review of the film itself.

Here's another one, have you seen this movie? Religulous? How accurate is Vice, just out of curiosity? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700004997/Religulous.html

Haven't seen it. I like Bill Mahrer generally (I think he makes John Stewart look like a simpleton), but I do remember that his anti-religious speech at the Oscars was pretty obnoxious.

 

[sirkickyass]

I put it on. My first comment: I'm annoyed it's not in HD.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Steve Salles (Standard Examiner reviewer) gave it three stars out of four, for whatever you think that's worth. I happen to like Salles' work, so I would be likely to agree with him.

 

[TroutBum]

Reed Cowan's (supposedly) reaction via the comments section:

Jeff. Are you a journalist? Seriously! You obviously didn't see the film, much the same as the church you work for admits they have not. We did solicit the participation of the LDS leaders and we do show in the film that they repeatedly turned us down. We play a phone interview with LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah for Heaven's sake. I invite you to be a journalist and not a sniper for the church who writes your paycheck. So so disappointed in you. See the film. Then have your say. it is CLEAR you did not see the film before reviewing it. If you did, you obviously had extended pop corn/bathroom breaks and missed that which you write about. Your readers might also be interested to know that after my co-director Steven Greenstreet questioned your review you deleted him on facebook. Tremendously sad.

"OMG, you like, totally deleted me on FB!!!1"

Ho Lee Snotballs, what are we, twelve year old girls?

 

[TroutBum]

I put it on. My first comment: I'm annoyed there's hardly any graphic nudity.

.

 

[sirkickyass]

I just finished it. I'll say this right off the bat: I initially thought the claim that the reviewer hadn't seen the movie was pretty ridiculous. Obviously that stretches the boundaries of credulity because it's an integrity issue and one that essentially goes to whether or not the person and the publication can be trusted.

Having seen the film, the Deseret News review does have an extremely significant factual error: one that would be completely inexcusable unless the reviewer failed to view several minutes of the film. While I'm not willing to completely say that he failed to view the film at all, I will say that it is questionable in my mind if he viewed the whole film or if he paid attention during a full segment of the film. While he may not necessarily be dishonest, he certainly did a poor job in this instance. Frankly, I think I'm being charitable.

Also, I had no idea Chris Buttars was an LDS Bishop (twice apparently). How long ago was this? I can't seem to find a time frame on his service anywhere. Certainly, I'd be troubled if this was at all recent.

I have further thoughts but will reserve them for now while I let it percolate.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Originally Posted by Sirkickyass I put it on. My first comment: I'm annoyed there's hardly any graphic nudity.

Well in that case I think I'll skip it too. I'd rather watch that 80's classic: "Making Love." Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin swapping spit, Kate Jackson as the spurned wife - what more can you ask for? I highly recommend "the poster formerly known as Skellington" try to find a copy somewhere. Oh yeah, and "Zorro, the Gay Blade" with George Hamilton is classic comedy at it's best.