Ban MGM/UA over Kinsey Film! (Hollywood Sinks to New Lows)

myself, after seeing EW Fall Movie Preview | 8/16/2004 | Pyro7480

[Pyro7480]

This November, MGM/UA will be releasing a movie based on the life of Alfred Kinsey, an "academic" who released two "studies," Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which legitimized the sexual revolution in the 1960s, and is still being used to legitimize sexually perverted behavior. Kinsey himself was a sexual pervert himself, being a homosexual, a probable pedophile, and a S&M freak.

In Entertainment Weekly's fall movie preview, the movie is previewed. Liam Neeson plays Kinsey, and from the companion picture, Neeson indeed looks like Kinsey. The director and producer, Bill Condon, describes Kinsey as "half scientist, half preacer," when Kinsey's own research has been thoroughly debunked. In the last paragraph of the article, it states that the cast and crew is "bracing for conservative reaction to the touchy content," which includes graphic images of human genitalia. Laura Linney, who plays Kinsey's wife in the movie, states that "[p]eople just flip out. They feel like the fabric of American society is coming undone" (which is the truth, Ms. Linney!)

Like the pressure CBS faced when they were planning to show their propaganda piece on the Reagans, we need to pressure both MGM/UA (to threaten to ban ALL of their flicks) and the MPAA (to rate the movie NC-17, undercutting the money the studio could make). Hollywood has sunk to a new low with this propaganda piece.

[Pyro7480]

Past FR threads on the subject:
Kinsey film focus of O'Reilly tonight
The Kinsey-Polanski story: Judith Reisman warns of Hollywood supporting pedophile-rights
Film star to portray 'sex reformer' Kinsey (Liam Neeson)

[Pyro7480]

Ping!

[Lunatic Fringe]

What a great idea! Draw attention to a crappy movie, and make people wonder what it is that those religious conservatives don't want you to see!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"It's okay. I'm a licensed therapist. I know what I'm doing." :)

[Pyro7480]

So you want people to do nothing?

[Jokelahoma]

Boycott, yes. Work to get it rated NC-17, yes. Ban? No. No matter how revolting you find it (and I would tend to agree with you, myself), banning is not the answer. People will see it anyway, and all banning does it give those behind it a martyr complex to use to their benefit. We simply cannot resort to banning that with which we disagree. We can work to show others how and why it is wrong, but banning is counterproductive, to say the least.

To put it another way, as my pop once told me, if you want to show people that a man who disagrees with you is dead wrong, you don't silence him. You give him a soapbox and invite others to hear him speak, then counter his claims and show how wrong he is.

[Happygal]

a probable pedophile

What's a probable peadophile? He either was one, or he wasn't.

[Darksheare]

I know EXACTLY how to deal with the MGM/UA guys who decided this.
Put them and their children through the crap Kinsey put people through and then see how they feel afterwards.
Cruel and inhuman, but poetic irony/justice for thier decision.

Of course, common sense says we can't do that.
So we boycott them.

[TheBigB]

It's a stupid-sounding film that no one will bother seeing unless a big stink is raised about how no one should see it.

There are more important things to worry about.

[gcruse]

Please take me off your ping list.

[Pyro7480]

I apologize. I saw your contribution to one of the past threads, and I thought you would be interested.

[sharktrager]

Please take me off your ping list.

[Pyro7480]

See post #11.

[loboinok]

Very intelligent decision!And effective.

[EdReform]

Bump

[Rummyfan]

Laura Linney (yum!) and Liam Neeson? They don't have any better offers coming in?

[flashbunny]

I think you misread - he doesn't want to ban the movie, merely the entire MGM/UA studio and related companies. A much smaller undertaking than merely 'banning' a movie...

[Bonaparte]

Kinsey was a mediocre zoologist with no qualifications at all for carrrying out the type of "study" he claimed to have done. His subjects were almost exclusively homosexuals, prostitutes and other low-lifes like himself.

[Jokelahoma]

Ah, I see. Well, never mind then! If one can ban an entire corporation, well more power to one! Once successful, if we could then move on to perhaps banning entire schools of thought, that would help, too. Then again, it would be much better for humanity to simply ban, say, disease, or perhaps hunger. :-)

Is it too late to say "I'm sticking to my original post on this"?

[Angry Enough]

Are you sure it's not Bill Condom?