IMDB poster Meg, Great comments on Chapter 27..Thanks
I want to take a moment to thank Meg n Cognto for stepping back from the outrage to make some very intelligent comments on Chapter 27.
OK, let's just clear this all up in a respectful and mature manner, while still utilizing proper grammer and correct spelling. "He Who Must Not Be Named" murdered John Lennon (a man who affected MUCH positive social change in the world...not just a lyrical and musical genius) for the SOLE PURPOSE of becoming famous as John Lennon's murderer. We know that we already knew who he was before talks of this movie ever began, BUT, unless you have a learning deficiency, you must admit that, if you make a movie about someone who aims to be famous...uh...you're giving said person EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. That is the reason for any and all boycotts. Following Lennon's murder, Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono asked Lennon fans to simply NEVER speak this man's name again so as to avoid any possibility that he may ever get the fame he so craved that he murdered an innocent, non-violent human being. End of discussion. Thank you. Next time, let's try to educate ourselves about the totality of any given situation before we start spouting off at the mouth about things which we are ignorant.
ig·no·rant–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
-----------
This isn't about censorship. The movie exists. It hasn't been edited to suit our fragile state...it's simply a matter of the majority having spoken and that colllective voice said "We don't support giving this man any additional notoriety. We won't pay to watch his story". Buyers, in turn, chose not to pick up this film and, thus, it is not to be released in the U.S. HOWEVER, if you REALLY want to see it, it is available elsewhere, including the internet. So, censorship? No. Disgust with the moral underpinnings of a movie SPECIFICALLY about the MURDERER? Yes. If so many people were so extremely in favor of giving this film life in America, why didn't they speak up as the opposition did? Do you honestly think it would have been in Lennon's character to reward senseless violence by awarding the perpetrator of said violence the EXACT THING for which they comitted their violent act? I really don't. It's sad to me that you are, apparently, based on your reply, in favor of glamorizing this man's violence. This all comes down to a personal interpretation, though. Therefore, it's a battle which no one can "win". All that can be is done is to present the facts AS WE KNOW THEM. This is something that Heiress did not do, as she seemingly didn't know the slightest about this. I felt compelled to clear up that bit of ignorant thinking for her and hopefully spur her to rethink what she believes. Exactly as I felt compelled to correct a supervisor who claimed that marijuana and dog urine have the same chemical makeup. That's just what I do. All apologies if I have offended anyone who reads this or my previous post. But, I would have to ask, then, why? Why so angry? Let's try not to be so nasty to one another.
--------------------------------------
And to all of the Shareholders of Peace Arch Entertainment, congratulations on your short term stock market gains...THEY WILL NOT LAST.
INSTANT KARMAS GONNA GET YA!!!!
PEACE
HEYYYY NOW!!!
F...Stuttering John and Jackie
Hiii....Fred
Labels: Jared Leto, john lennon, lindsey lohan, p, PAE, peace arch entertainment
posted by Howard at 6:56 AM
.png){kind=small}
8 Comments:
Just to let you know. The U.S WILL SEE THIS MOVIE. Weather or not they show this movie or not it does not take away the fact of it ever even happening. The truth is it DID happen. what it comes down to is that if you dont want to see the movie DONT see it dont pay the money. and if you do GREAT. But for you people to be boycotting something so stupid is just wrong.
So if you're boycotting Chapter 27 why don't you boycott the 'copycat' movie "The Killing of John Lennon" as well considering it's pretty much the same exact movie.
What about movies based off of other killers? Dahmer, Gacy...Manson.
I didn't see anyone boycotting the Selena film.
Just curious, how do you guys feel about John Lennon profiting from the Manson murders? He did you know.
Many movies were done about the Tate and La Bianca murders before John Lennon died and most contained the song "Helter Skelter".
Every time the movie played John got some money and even now every time these movies play, his estate gets some more money.
I don't see them complaining about the money or setting up some foundation to prevent cult murders with the money.
i think you are being stupid. like other peoplesaid there are other movies on other killings that have been seen and praised. what you are doing is just making this man more famous for mentioning him so much and making a huge deal about it. this movie will be seen in america wether you like it or not.
CHAPTER 27 IS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN THE USA!!!!
This page kind of amazes and horrifies at the same time. You seem to have mistakenly put a blue ribbon denoting freedom of speech on the internet, on your page, but want people to boycott others who don't share your views? And we'll gloss over your comparisons to Hitler.
Out of respect for you, I won't name him, but he is famous. He is famous for the reason he wanted to be famous and nothing can stop that and nothing ever will.
But to start a campaign on a small film company trying to make it, is a terrible thing to do. So you disagree with the film. Does that mean you should actually try and destroy peoples livelyhoods? Is that what John would have wanted? Is that the spirit in which he lived?
It's only a film and won't take anything away from John's legacy and won't possibly add anything to his killers.
Let it be.
Three words: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. I do believe that is very much apart of the American Constitution.
Post a Comment
<< Home