Alamo style women-only 'Wonder Woman' screenings to go national?

[Syne]

But a whites-only screening bothers you?

[Zinjanthropos]

But a whites-only screening bothers you?

Not sure not sure how the thread has got to this point. I never counted on individual entertainment preference being a launch pad for discrimination issues. Is nothing sacred?

[Yazata]

EXCERPT: [...] In fact, the women-only screening of the Patty Jenkins-directed superhero movie starring everyone’s favorite amazon was so popular that the Alamo added a second screening. It’s sold out, too. Exclusionary? Maybe. Brilliant? You bet.

I wouldn't call politicizing a movie that might possibly do well in wide-release 'brilliant'. It just dramatically reduces the movie's potential audience.

The key to selling a movie is turning it into more than just a cinematic work. And with the Alamo’s clever tactic, a $120 million DC Films production was transformed from one more summer superhero movie into a hotly-debated political movement

I'm sure that one individual theater can pack in the lesbian feminists for a couple of screenings, but that strategy isn't going to work nationwide. If the movie gets a reputation that it's a women's political movie, then men are unlikely to turn out in large numbers to see it and many women won't either, if they have to go alone.

It might be a reasonably good movie (as comic-book movies go), so it's a little unfortunate to see it being forced into being a limited-appeal niche movie that's only likely to play well in little art-house theaters in NY and LA. If that happens, the studio is never going to make their money back.

[Syne]

But a whites-only screening bothers you?

Not sure not sure how the thread has got to this point. I never counted on individual entertainment preference being a launch pad for discrimination issues. Is nothing sacred?

Is it that you're avoiding the question or that you see no parallel between "women-only" and "whites-only"?
If you wouldn't care about either, we agree.

[Secular Sanity]

I think it's illegal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

It looks good, though.

[Syne]

I think it's illegal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

It looks good, though.

Oh, you mean the one that "outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"?

[Zinjanthropos]

But a whites-only screening bothers you?

Not sure not sure how the thread has got to this point. I never counted on individual entertainment preference being a launch pad for discrimination issues. Is nothing sacred?

Is it that you're avoiding the question or that you see no parallel between "women-only" and "whites-only"?

If you wouldn't care about either, we agree.

Nothing surprises me anymore. I took a stance long ago that things are the way they are because evolution has dictated it. IMHO, life does not care how it survives and certain behavior by animal groups (including humans) that we show disdain for has developed to improve a species chances. Perhaps discrimination has contributed to our survival and perhaps today it does not. Unfortunately evolution takes time and only time will tell. Meanwhile people get bent, love it or hate it

[RainbowUnicorn]

Okay... Where's the guys-only screening of Thor:Ragnarok or Spiderman:Homecoming going to be? Nowhere? So...this is just sexist pandering?

Got it.

Yes, I believe that people should have the freedom to deny non-critical, private service for any reason, religious, whim, or whatever. And if a competitor doesn't deny service, that competitor does better. 

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Got it.

men dont want it so the market does not provide it.

i find it fascinating how certain groups of people define gender identity as an optional political construct.

---

But a whites-only screening bothers you?

Not sure not sure how the thread has got to this point. I never counted on individual entertainment preference being a launch pad for discrimination issues. Is nothing sacred?

Is it that you're avoiding the question or that you see no parallel between "women-only" and "whites-only"?

If you wouldn't care about either, we agree.

Nothing surprises me anymore. I took a stance long ago that things are the way they are because evolution has dictated it. IMHO, life does not care how it survives and certain behavior by animal groups (including humans) that we show disdain for has developed to improve a species chances. Perhaps discrimination has contributed to our survival and perhaps today it does not. Unfortunately evolution takes time and only time will tell. Meanwhile people get bent, love it or hate it

What would racial discrimination for breeding purposes achieve for a species ?
1st & formost... if the potential breeding mate is of a colour & features which is unable to be recognised from those with diseases & birth defects then the obvious danger would be quite apprent and also hard wired into genetic predisposition.

how many people would be perfectly comfortable having a close sexual & social relationship with a person with bright green skin ?

what colour would their children be ?
would their social network & society they live in reject them &/or their children ?

[Zinjanthropos]

RU..... you mention green skin, did you just watch the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy? An all green screening perhaps? (Not a reference to special effects)

Casually speaking......It will be interesting if we survive long enough to populate other worlds, travel at high speeds and mess with time. Do you think it will bring isolation back as an evolutionary factor for the human race? Must have been awkward for our forebears to encounter pockets of humanity all over the globe. What affect would such meetings have had on the people involved? It must have been like meeting someone from outer space. I think our natural instinct would be to see how they measure up to us. Initially would our ancestors have known we're the same species?

Well we know enough now to reach the conclusion that we are all human. There is very little isolation and thus our evolution takes another turn, at least that is how I see it. I think a huge evolutionary adjustment is in progress, unfortunately we won't see how it ends.

[RainbowUnicorn]

RU..... you mention green skin, did you just watch the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy? An all green screening perhaps? (Not a reference to special effects)

Casually speaking......It will be interesting if we survive long enough to populate other worlds, travel at high speeds and mess with time. Do you think it will bring isolation back as an evolutionary factor for the human race? Must have been awkward for our forebears to encounter pockets of humanity all over the globe. What affect would such meetings have had on the people involved? It must have been like meeting someone from outer space. I think our natural instinct would be to see how they measure up to us. Initially would our ancestors have known we're the same species?

Well we know enough now to reach the conclusion that we are all human. There is very little isolation and thus our evolution takes another turn, at least that is how I see it. I think a huge evolutionary adjustment is in progress, unfortunately we won't see how it ends.

LoL i was pondering Gaurdians of the Galaxy as i typed it.
Generically because we are rasied as social animals there is strong tendency to continue the social model inside the realms of known variables.
Isolationism as a traite would be quite beneficial to prevent disease and loss of tribal security.
conversly one could argue that isolationism could just as easily spell the end to that particular species.
As you mention there is a massive jump in knowledge in the last 100 years or soo.
One of the human traites which seems to have helped survival and longevity of the species is a drive to seek new and different things.
I have read some arguements that tend to infer that, as a sexual drive in males, to find attractive that which is new/different.
The/our understanding of the species being defined as all human is also matched with our growing understanding of genetics and the ability to eingineer new forms.
It raises questions like Autism & aspergers adhd add and other such geneticly percieved issues that may be attributable to breeding issues from pollution of the DNA. Some might argue that even cold & flu viruses influence human evolution.

as for the somewhat touchy subject of historical conceptions of species identification matched with social evolution...
There is sufficient data to suggest that comprehension of other life forms is attributable to a level of evolutionary intellect.
The sway on informed agreement may well be blurred by the pattern of intergration.
e.g how do we define a single point of normalcy when there has always been a certain amount of ignorant & direct control.
selective breeding is a fact of historical mathamatics.
While up until fairly recently selective breeding has been based on social highrachy rather than actual intellectual ability.
Class & power dictate a strong control mechanism on species evolution.
fear of loss of social highrachy or power would drive de-evlution just as much as evolution.
Gradually this seems to be easing to a more intellectual based approach where people seek a greater level of intelectual AND physical ability.