Another business to boycott.

I'm not much into boycotting businesses for political reasons, but here is one business to boycott if it matters enough to you.

I watched HBO's "Behind the Candelabra" last night and enjoyed it. It was about Liberace's (Michael Douglas) gay relationship with a much younger Scott Thorson (Matt Damon). I won't call it a great movie, but I found it entertaining and funny (like this reviewer below) and at bit disturbing too (from how Liberace dismissed people on a whim). A really great performance by Michael Douglas! I predict it will be a cult classic.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/05/review-behind-candelabra-soderbergh-hbo-liberace-gay-sex

The strange thing is this was supposed to be a Hollywood movie, not an HBO movie. The problem was that no Hollywood studio would distribute it.

During a press tour in January, Soderbergh explained how he was turned down by every studio he approached with his Liberace project because executives deemed it "too gay" to turn an acceptable profit:

Nobody would make it. We went to everybody in town. We needed $5 million. Nobody would do it...They said it was too gay. Everybody. This was after Brokeback Mountain, by the way. Which is not as funny as this movie. I was stunned. It made no sense to any of us...[The people at HBO are] great and they're really good at what they do, and ultimately I think more people will see it, and that's all you care about. Studios were going, "We don't know how to sell it." They were scared.

Again, nobody should be too surprised. This is the same Hollywood and big-money film industry that still hasn't come to terms with showing a black man and a white woman having passionate sex or dating on-screen.

Are any of you that boycott businesses outraged by "Hollywoood and [the] big-money film industry" enough to boycott Hollywood movies showing at theaters?

ACTUALLY, the M.O. is NO different than when Spielberg attempted to get "Redtails" out to the public....he was FORCED to provide his
OWN financing and the big hollywood machine refused his offering. HOWEVER, this just might be a way to "fight" Goliath.....www.
wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/05/28/exclusive-first-look-malcolm-gladwells-new-book-cover/?google_editors_picks=true. I plan to buy it.

Or maybe they just thought the movie going public, mostly teenage boys, wouldn't be interested in a movie about a 70's has been?

If you run the dates, Matt Damon's character moved in with Liberace before he was 18. Did the movie address that?

It's a business... plain and simple (note - a business that I was involved in for 8 years in the 1990's... I know from whence I speak). Too gay, too black, too this, too that... the only thing they are worried about is asses in the seats.

And if you think HBO or any other media outlets are being so altruistic, I got a seat in a drug store on Hollywood Blvd to sell you... sit there... you'll be a star... I guarantee it. HBO can target a smaller, more defined market and justify it's attraction to viewership.

Boycotting Hollywood would be like boycotting cows... they will still be producing milk... whether you like it or not.

pineinthegrass wrote: I'm not much into boycotting businesses for political reasons, but here is one business to boycott if it matters enough to you.

I watched HBO's "Behind the Candelabra" last night and enjoyed it. It was about Liberace's (Michael Douglas) gay relationship with a much younger Scott Thorson (Matt Damon). I won't call it a great movie, but I found it entertaining and funny (like this reviewer below) and at bit disturbing too (from how Liberace dismissed people on a whim). A really great performance by Michael Douglas! I predict it will be a cult classic.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/05/review-behind-candelabra-soderbergh-hbo-liberace-gay-sex

The strange thing is this was supposed to be a Hollywood movie, not an HBO movie. The problem was that no Hollywood studio would distribute it.

During a press tour in January, Soderbergh explained how he was turned down by every studio he approached with his Liberace project because executives deemed it "too gay" to turn an acceptable profit:

Nobody would make it. We went to everybody in town. We needed $5 million. Nobody would do it...They said it was too gay. Everybody. This was after Brokeback Mountain, by the way. Which is not as funny as this movie. I was stunned. It made no sense to any of us...[The people at HBO are] great and they're really good at what they do, and ultimately I think more people will see it, and that's all you care about. Studios were going, "We don't know how to sell it." They were scared.

Again, nobody should be too surprised. This is the same Hollywood and big-money film industry that still hasn't come to terms with showing a black man and a white woman having passionate sex or dating on-screen.

Are any of you that boycott businesses outraged by "Hollywoood and [the] big-money film industry" enough to boycott Hollywood movies showing at theaters?

That's like saying "I'm outraged about something the gas companies did, so I won't buy any more gas." It's a stupid analogy.

If I boycott a company, it will be because of issues I have with that company--not an "industry"...(except, of course, gun manufacturers).

I've boycotted Exxon since 1987.
I've boycotted BP since about 2005.

"Hollywood" is a collection of companies, and producers, and funding sources, etc. There have been other films that were "too hot to handle" that were produced independently. And god bless 'em for it.

So-o-o, I'm watching the HBO special with my BIL(who is gay and over 55).....I asked him to rate the movie...10 being superb,1 it sucks, his response....a 3. (I actually walked away from the TV screen about 25 minutes into the show)...I did NOT think it was that
well done...Douglas did a good "queen" and Damion did a delicious tender piece of meat,HOWEVER,the script left me flat and wanting
more...it seemed incomplete in truly exploring their lives. JMO

Not too hard to boycott Exxon & BP here, is it?

FredHayek wrote: Not too hard to boycott Exxon & BP here, is it?

Since I started boycotting Exxon in 1987, I've lived in many Exxon-heavy areas...I also traveled with business on long-term assignments to many Exxon-heavy areas...

As for BP, they have some stations here, but I cut up my card and sent it back...

Lastly, your opinion of whether it has any effect is like virtually everything else: You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think.

LadyJazzer wrote:
If I boycott a company, it will be because of issues I have with that company--not an "industry"...(except, of course, gun manufacturers).

I've boycotted Exxon since 1987.
I've boycotted BP since about 2005.

Hypocrisy alert! :rofllol

Guns are bad and you can boycott the whole industry because you don't use a gun on a daily basis (or ever for all I know).

But the big bad oil industry that you've b*tched about for years is ok, because of course, you use oil every day of your life. I'll bet if you lived off the land and didn't own a car, you'd be boycotting oil companies of every kind. But I guess as long as you can pick a couple oil companies to hate, that will make you look like less of a hypocrite.

Now I'll wait for archer's retort. :coffee-News:

I just meant to point out that it is easier to boycott a company where there are many easy alternatives than an industry. But beware, since Conoco is the big refinery in the area, even if you buy only Shell blends, Conoco probably actually refined the gasoline and made money off it.
I used to work at an independent gas station in the metro area but we were selling Conoco gas.