Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

The City of Minneapolis Shuts Down Outdoor Movie Shows... Barricade Ordered by Police

Nice by Exalay	Jul 14th, 2001 12:21:26 PM
And this can happen in a liberal state? I wonder if they tried to ban T J "Hooker," or outlaw the sale of "hook" rugs as well.
Hey gang, when we get through here, let's head to the public lib by Huneybee	Jul 14th, 2001 12:34:17 PM
This nothing but censorship in its worst form. It is one thing to attempt to regulate your children's access to certain movies, books, music, etc. but this appears to be adults telling other adults what the can or cannot see. What hypocrites!
Wonder what they're so afraid of.... by austinbob	Jul 14th, 2001 12:59:41 PM
I've never posted talk back before, but I have to say, this is just ridiculous. What are The Powers That Be in the city so afraid of? It's beyond me. Had to vent steam on this one. Wish I lived there, so I could join the protest!
Sigh... by Cutter20	Jul 14th, 2001 01:04:47 PM
I'm willing to bet that not too many of the officials have actually seen the film in question. While I can understand why a parent would be upset about a public viewing of this, how is it that these same parents can cheerfully hand their child 8 bucks to go see "Scary Movie 2"? I agree... censorship sucks, but let cooler heads prevail. Kudos to the guys for passing out flyers and exercising their rights to gather assembly and speek freely.
You guys are being major drama queens. by hudsucker	Jul 14th, 2001 01:19:31 PM
Although there may indeed be some ulterior motives in trying to shut down the show, the MCDA has never stated any problem with the film Vampire Hookers. Their problem was with the venue and the fact that Atomic Shock has never had the permission or proper insurance to hold an outdoor film screening on public property. Until there is some further evidence that this has ANYTHING to do with some wierd form of militaristic censorship, it's not really an issue at all. It's like inviting the whole city to a block party on the streets of downtown without actually contacting city officials first. If you don't want to get the proper permits and insurance, then don't hold your screening on public property. I can't believe this was even posted as news. I live in Minneapolis and it such a non-issue here that it's even hard to find in the news.
They've already overreacted... by sprocket-bot	Jul 14th, 2001 01:33:04 PM
let us not do the same. The court of public opinion is harsh and unforgiving, but I'm sure the whole story has yet to be revealed!
Community Standards by Slugworth	Jul 14th, 2001 01:33:58 PM
I sometimes have been caught at a strip bar or two. Each locality seems to have a different regulations. Some in some cities the dancers must wear pasties. Some cities allow topless dancing but not bottomless. Some cities allow bottomless dancing but only if the club does not sell alcohol, otherwise they must dance topless only. Hell, I've been to a place that allows nude dancing but only if the club does not sell alcohol, BUT patrons are allowed to bring their own beer in with them. Anyhow, each community is allowed to set their own standards for what is acceptable in public places. Personally, I don't have much of an issue with the film being shown. But the people in that community do have a problem, and it is being shown outdoors and not in someone's private residence. I am familiar with all the common arguements (parent should be make sure their children don't view this, etc.), but really who the hell am I to tell another community what they should and should not allow. Different communities have different values and IMHO that is okay. You state that "Its not Hardcore Porn". So am I to infer that you would not be in favor of an outdoor viewing of Titty Titty Gang Bang in your community? Why? Because that would be deemed inappropriate in YOUR community. So unless you think that I should be allowed to visit your neighborhood and show Titty Titty Gang Bang at 2 in the afternoon on your street corner with children running around, YOU believe that some form of restriction is permissible. Where to draw the line is just a matter of community tastes. It is damn right arrogant and sophomoric for you to think that YOU are more qualified to judge what is acceptable in someone else's community that the residents of that community. Everyone in the world does NOT have to think like YOU do. They should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. In the end what is the net result? The film WILL be shown indoors and everyone who wants to see VAMPIRE HOOKERS will see VAMPIRE HOOKERS.
We are a bunch of prudes by SimianSidewalk	Jul 14th, 2001 01:40:52 PM
A few years back I remember reading that a guy rented The Tin Drum which was a academy award winning film for best foreign film in 1979 and the police came to his house to confiscate the tape. That;s the country we are living in folks. Anything remotly involved with sex and we flip out. Now I'm sure there is little nudity in the film and the violence is cartoonish but with small group of parents or i should say one person didnt approve. You know the type, remember the lady who wanted Married with Children taken off the air . You only really see this stuf in the middle of the country where people have got nothing better to do than try and stop people from having a good time. They see things that are for adults, they are curious about it but then they remembver that they have to be moral people of God and flip out that they want to see it and so they cant let anyone else see it. I'm going before I start to ramble on
right on huneybee by exador	Jul 14th, 2001 01:47:56 PM
sounds like good ol fashion redtape and politics to me..but i fully agree with ya..this sucks....whether its about zoning or permits...i think the bottom line is that if they were showing "the sound of music" we wouldn't be having this talkback. c'mon folks...we're almost officially out of 'the age of irony'...ya'll should have learned that this stuff can be laughed at!..i mean really...vampire hookers?..sounds like a joke to me....oooo...a little bit of T&A and every one freaks out....tha talkbacker above that mentioned crapfests like Scary Movie 2 is also on the money...that gets a 'kids ok' seal of approval????? it's probably 10 times worse!...ahhhh...what can ya do?...i agree with Papa geek...shut em down....let em know that this sort of thing won't be tolerated!.............hahahaa ..then again, i don't even live in the states...so do what ever ya think is best....cheers....exador has left the building....
Censorship SUCKS! by Huneybee	Jul 14th, 2001 02:22:54 PM
The remark that you might want to
this sucks by sokitome	Jul 14th, 2001 02:32:56 PM
is it just me or does it seem more censorship is happening recently than ever
No city council meeting... by Slugworth	Jul 14th, 2001 03:21:52 PM
But I might have to swing over to the titty bar. Your attempts to paint me as a prude because I disagree with you are pretty immature. So what you are saying is that it is okay to watch Vampire Hookers because it is after dark? That sounds like an arbitrary condition doesn't it? How is that different than saying that Hard Core porn is unaccpetable and Vampire Hookers is acceptable. Like I said, its matter of where you draw the line and every community has the right to draw the line where they see fit not where some dude with website thinks the lines should be drawn. Now, if a person honestly thinks there should be no ordinances against me showing up and screening Titty Titty Gang Bang across the street from a nursery school, or any of the TTGB trilogy for that matter (I personally am quite fond of Titty Titty Gang Bang II: The Legend of Curly's Gold), I don't have a problem with you being upset. At least those people are consistant. But anyone who thinks that public speech can be restricted do to objectional content is indeed a hypocrite.
Slugworth, Movies played there for TWO YEARS before someone had by Huneybee	Jul 14th, 2001 04:33:40 PM
You attempted to present a scenario in which hardcore porn was to be initiated on a street corner for viewing by young children in the middle of the day. What does that have to do with the presentation of a horror movie in the same venue where other movies of an equivalent ilk have been playing? Inconsistency must be your middle name. Your deliberate exaggeration was infantile (if we simply MUST exchange insults) and I never attempted to paint you as a prude; I was calling you a hypocrite. Let me make that very plain
test by Huneybee	Jul 14th, 2001 04:36:20 PM

Vic Diaz plays a guy named "Pavo" a pervy vampire that breathes by Uncapie	Jul 14th, 2001 04:54:55 PM
Granted, this is not a masterpiece of cinema. It was written by Howard Cohen, which I worked on five of his films. He passed away a few years ago. Same thing with Vic Diaz who was the Michael Ripper of Philippino films. Choen was a nice enough guy, always smoking his pipe, but no John Ford here. I saw this "epic" at a Dr. Reed Academy Of Science Fiction screening in 1979 with a mixed audience of young and old and it was, well, full of sex scenes and crude humor. Many people walked out and laughed at the wrong parts. This is not the type of film you want to show to a public which might families with young ones in the audience. Maybe a different film should have been shown instead at the last moment to save face. Many cities still enforce "Blue Laws" in their areas. Burbank, California is one of them. If "Vampie Hookers" was run in a film room at a convention , that's private property and you could get away with it. Outside, projected on a wall, for everyone to see, you're opening yourself up a can of worms.
he he he! by KRUSTY	Jul 14th, 2001 05:23:22 PM
It is fustrating and some what funny to hear when that happens, what can i say, thank god I live in a country where a thing like that cant happen YET!! by the way, i live in DENMARK, he hehe
HuneyBee by Slugworth	Jul 14th, 2001 08:45:32 PM
Gesshh... This seems like a futile effort on my part. You are certainly entrenched in your own dogma and how dare I challenge it. First off I am not quite sure that films of the "equivilent ilk" have been shown there for two years. The website says "Atomic Shock Theater has presented its unique shows in NUMEROUS public and commercial venues since 1999" that does not imply that the viewing have been in the exact same venue by any strech. But again it is beside the point. The point is who the hell are you to decide what the "equivalent ilk" is? That is your own value judgement and you should not force that value judgement on someone else. "If I suddenly decide that the local strip joint (where you might like to go on occasion) is personally offensive because my young child is in the car with me when we ride past on the way home, do I attempt to have the strip club closed citing morality issues and zoning laws?" No, because the event that are taking place occur beyond the public eye. Personally, I am a quite libertarian. I don't like legislation much. I say, if you want to hire a hooker, vampire or otherwise, and snort coke off her tits that is your business. But I don't necessarily believe that you should be allowed to do it on a park bench. Yes my example was an exageration, it was intended to be that way. I.e. what consenting adults do in private is their very own business, but what they do IN PUBLIC is not necessarily. But the point still stands, YOU DO believe that there should be SOME limit on public decency, you just think that YOU should be the final judge of what that limit should be in every community in America. I happen to disagree.
Atomic Shock Sets the Record STRAIGHT by DoctorRedScarey	Jul 14th, 2001 08:51:46 PM
Sorry to intrude on your collective ego farm, gentlemen, but it is I, Doctor Red Scarey of Atomic Shock Theatre in Minneapolis and I am here to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. FACTS: We had every permit the city required. We have been doing the shows for two years. The city has issued permits repeatedly for the types of shows we have been doing. CONJECTURE: The film is not the problem, the organization that operates the parking lot we were using may be. WHAT CAN YOU DO?: Stay tuned to carschoolfilms.com if you are interested in how this turns out. The city owns the lot, and the city issued the permits before, but how may times have you seen every branch of a city government working hand in hand, eh? It isn't censorship, it's just a little red tape. But it's not non-news, we just had the lead story on the local 10pm news. And as a last note, our final film in the series is a freaking GENE AUTRY movie, so you can all relax.
You know what sucks more than this? THE DAMN POP-UP ADS THAT AR by Hellboy	Jul 14th, 2001 08:55:47 PM
Boy, do I HAAAAATTTTEEEE pop up ads.
Minneapolis city council and zoning and red tape.....I feel for by Darth Ranik	Jul 14th, 2001 09:21:26 PM
I live in the fine city of Minneapolis, and I have delt with the city council before when I wanted to do an addition onto my house. Didn't help that the city council memeber for my district lives two houses down from me. Let me just say that if one of these dorks, who couldn't get a job in the professional world, gets a bug up thier ass about something, they can make your life a fucking living hell. I can tell you it probably went something like this. Joe Blow council member finds out Vampire Hookers is playing and his/her delicate sensibilities are offended. He/she makes a call to various organizations trying to find a way to close it down, upon success, they go home and furiously masturbate. I never realized how much power members of a city counsil had until I was at thier mercy.
RE: Drama Queens... by mlif	Jul 14th, 2001 09:45:48 PM
Well - A) We have been doing this for two years...we contacted the officials necessary each year we did it. B) We obtained permits for each screening we performed. C) We are lease-holding tenants of the property in question. D) it was an issue enough that the Minneapolis Star Tribune sent not one but two reporters and the CBS news affilate covered the story Live as the lead story for the 10 pm news cast. There is much more going on here than meets the eye. The MCDA does these sorts of things to more people than just us...we are simply the most recent.
Insider's perspective by loucyphre	Jul 14th, 2001 10:27:14 PM
I am a resident of the Twin Cities. I have also been the target of censorship and community standards groups. People who think that there are rational explainations for the trampling of these guys' constitutional rights are wrong, wrong, wrong. This is the heartland folks. It doesn't matter if you're in the city or not. People are just as puritanical and two-faced here as anywhere. Governor Ventura should stick up for these guys but somehow I doubt it. Guys, you have my support. But for those who took my previous statements to mean this is just a midwest thing, trust me this censorship can and does happen all over the country, and there is no excuse for it.
they wernt keeping them away from the movie... by Beeblebrox	Jul 15th, 2001 12:26:03 AM
They were keeping them away from the Grainbelt brewery! Ever taste Grainbelt? like sucking on a Badgers ass.... ZB
i don't live there but... by beastie	Jul 15th, 2001 01:05:32 AM
this happened with a recent pennywise (punk band) show in L.A. i'm really just curious as to what the fuck happened to the first ammendment. seriously, why, just because police feel verbally threatened, by something do they have the right to shut it down. if any of the talkbackers are cops in any of these cities could they please respond because i feel if i were to just ask i would be shut down.
UNHOLY WAR!! by Cuddly_Mantis	Jul 15th, 2001 01:25:06 AM
I say we raze the city of Minneapolis, justto get our point across. Censorship will NOT be tolerated!
Hey, y'know what else is really fUn? by heywood jablomie	Jul 15th, 2001 02:02:55 AM
How about burning a few Kurt Vonnegut novels, you eye-crossed hillbilly West Texas pigfuckers ya! Like Mr. Harry Fatbottom Whatever, I'll bet your bottom dollar you're cropulent doom as a dying pig, A comparison that would no doubt give him boners. Don't give 'im the satisfactioin, the fucks! *as J. Pesci takes over the dialogue.) Yeah right!!!!!!
Uncapie by Huneybee	Jul 15th, 2001 03:15:43 AM
First I wish to reply to Uncapie. I do not believe most of the movies I saw posted on carschoolsfilms.com would be appropriate for children. I would not let my children be exposed to them and this is my choice as a parent. That was not my point. My point was, if the movies played in the same place over the last two years are so highly visible and have been that objectionable (i.e., Night of the Living Dead played on June 16 according to their website itinerary), why make it an issue now? If the municipal leaders of Minneapolis are not allowing Atomic Shock Theatre to play VH because of the subject content that is the type of censorship to which I object. If it was okay before would it not be okay now?
bury censorship in HELL by cifra2	Jul 15th, 2001 03:23:44 AM
you've got to fight for your right! Only the people in America can change America, we can't fight for your rights outside, but we can give you our support. Here's mine, from old Europe. By the way, what's next? Closing nude beaches? Fuck, this even makes me laugh. Just an idea: show porn movies outdoors (hope the cops get the idea: it can always get WORSE).
To: docotor red scary by Huneybee	Jul 15th, 2001 03:35:21 AM
I do not care how many TV news programs show up at the Grainbelt Brewery Complex. I am beginning to believe that I have been misled by the subject matter of the post and the introduction by Father Geek. If you say that the movie is not the problem and this is simply a disagreement over who owns the parking lot, then why did you send this to AICN? I am making a BIG presumption there but my only other choice is that someone at AICN posted this story without gathering all the facts. That would be yellow journalism, right? If this is the case, I might as well just subscribe to the National Enquirer or Star as believe what I read here. Note: Moriarty actually admitted he was wrong about something on AICN and is respected for that admission.____As far as your suddenly showing up here on AICN, I cannot help but wonder if that was after you read my email to carschool whatever when I requested information as to how visible the movies you show would be to the public. Conclusion: You say it is not the movie, just red tape. That is okay. I was debating a principle. Oh, and I am not a gentleman.
Harry... by eviltwin2	Jul 15th, 2001 03:47:53 AM
Screw the movie, you should be pissed of that you weren't taken to The Pickled Parrot.
Still recommending that comprehension class or that you at least by Huneybee	Jul 15th, 2001 04:27:45 AM
Gee, the word Dogma just doesn
Harry, let us know the next time your in Minneapolis! by Philippines	Jul 15th, 2001 06:38:47 AM
Please venture over to Aquavit in the I.D.S. Center in downtown Minneapolis for dinner or lunch. It's the best food in the state. We love ya'!
Hypocricy at its highest form by Fernwick_	Jul 15th, 2001 06:45:57 AM
Harry is upset about the censoring of a FILM...but he will censor his TALKBACKS if some people cry about a talkback discussing abortion. Harry take time to make sure you are at least SOMEWHAT on SOME side of censorship. You cant play on both teams.... and the abortion issue itself is worthless... its the fact that we cant TALK about it, the fact that he is deleting our posts that is offensive.
Back at you Huneybee by Slugworth	Jul 15th, 2001 07:22:07 AM
Okay, where to start. First off, I was, and granted could very well be mistaken, that these shows are screened at different places. I was under the impression that this was a traveling troupe of film geeks.(That subtle phrase NUMEROUS PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL VENUES lead me to this conclusion). And yes, it may very well be the second consecutive summer in which showed films at the Grainbelt but how does that imply that the specific example that you sighted was shown at the Grainbelt if they are showing films AT NUMEROUS PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL VENUES? Therefore it not necessarily true that NOTLD was screened at the Grainbelt. It could have been, it could have been shown somewhere else. We can't really infer anything from the website. Well, maybe if I obtain that PhD in reading comp I can deftly jump to those conclusions (assumptions?). Anyhow, that is way beyond the actual point, but I will not stand by and have my reading comprehension skills slandered in this manner. :^) As I have stated many times, you ARE in favor of restricting public behavior, you have finally even admitted as much. So the question I pose is a very difficult one: Who makes the decision where to draft the lines and where do you put those lines? I say localities should be allowed to make those decisions for themself. Maybe you solution is that you think that you should be annointed High Duchess of Movie Ilk Equivalency, but I disagree. I don't think you are the final authority of ilk equivilency, certainly not by using the standard that movies are of the equivilent ilk because they are both horror films?!?!?! So every film in the same genre is now ilk equivilent? Okay, well than who decides what film belongs in what genre? Is Scary Movie ilk equivilent to Nightmare on Elmstreet or because it is a horror film or is it ilk equivilent to Kentucky Fried Movie because it is a comedy? What about subgenres? Is The Three Amigo's ilk equivilent to There's Something About Mary since they are both comedies? Or should they be separated into gross out comedies and zany fish out of H20 comedies? But most importantly who decides these things? Does the High Duchess of Movie Ilk Equivilency consult the Czar of Sub-Genre Classification to establish these limits, or do we allow local communities to govern themselves that they see best fit for their own neighborhoods? And I would like to point out that many communities do have public standard that for what is decent public behavior walking out of a titty bar. So if these dancers were standing in the parking lot waving their plump juicy labia at the people in the duplexes, in many communities they can get ticketed. But if they were just dressed a really slutty, well people don't really legislate against that. Its all where you draft the lines.
Greetings, Hunnybee! by Uncapie	Jul 15th, 2001 09:00:45 AM
I checked out Atomic Theater's showcase of films and I don't have a problem with any of them. They seem to be having fun and are doing a great job. My guess the problem is, is that the person who owned the land where they were to show the film freaked. Okay, "Vampire Hookers" does not have Jawas, Ewoks or cute fuzzy animals in it, but it does have the buzz word "hooker" and the tag line in the ad "Blood isn't all they suck." All you need is someone who doesn't understand that its just a marketing ploy to get people to see the film and tha person gets the impression that heathens are attacking the city, all women will be succumbed to their evil wills and it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Maybe he thought Atomic was going to pull a fast one on him and insert a soft core porno. I don't know their relationship. Maybe they just rent the space each week and have never seen the guy or they're bussiness associates who know each other very well. Hey, its his land, his rules. If the city has "Blue Laws" and they showed a film that wasn't deemed appropriate by the PTA or some group and someome was offened that children saw this, some bloodsucking vampire attorney would file a lawsuit naming everyone involved and the cops would throw the offending no-gooders in jail on morals charges. The best thing to do was if the owner wasn't certain about the content of the film, that Atomic could have given him a copy of the movie on video and let him decide or substitute the movie with another one at the last moment. We live in a society where its okay to show or market dismemberment or gruesome scenes to a ten year old kid it, yet, bare breasted women juggling their bodaciuous ta-ta's is illegal.
Slugworth has wisdom! by Christopher_atUC	Jul 15th, 2001 10:26:49 AM
I agree with many points from Slugworth's post (2001-07-14 13:33:58). If anyone decides for any reason that a public showing of any film cannot happen due to the content of the film, then you are a proponent of some form of censorship. Is that wrong? NO! If any of you are parents then you know that there are some things that you need to keep away from children of various ages until they are old enough and capable enough to make a decision for themselves. If children are left to make every decision for themselves without any guidance, we are all in trouble; because kids will go for the first shiny, pretty, or interesting thing that they see regardless of the consequences. They don't have the wisdom or foresight to make the right decision about sex and violence. Anyone that questions that statement just needs to talk to the people at Thurston high school, Heritage high school, and a dozen others. Children need direction in the tough matters like violence and sex and every community differs slightly on what sort of measures should be done to protect the innocent hearts and minds of the kids. So how can anyone outside of a community decide what is best for that community? Censorship is alive and well in every nation and in every city. It is alive and well in most homes throughout this great nation of ours. Part of what makes this nation so great is that YOUR rights end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of another party. Free speech doesn't mean that you can scream obscenities from your property with a bullhorn all hours of the day and night because your right to free speech is tempered with your neighbors right to peace and quiet. This is a similar scenario here. The right for any group or individual to publicly display a film is tempered by the parental rights and tastes of that community. Majority rules in this great nation of ours. If a community deems a public showing of any film unsuitable for display, then thank God we live in a country where the majority of that community can stop the showing. If you don't like that community and it
I ahve to agree with both Slugworth and Huneybee... by Uncapie	Jul 15th, 2001 02:51:40 PM
...both have valid points. Atomic's line up of films is pure fun. But, if you show the wrong film, even innocently, you'll get hanged by your balls. I was at another Dr. Reed opus when they showed Larry Foldes', "Young Warriors". There was a brutal rape sceen that no one in the audience that had any knowledge about. I mean fucking brutal. A biker gang rapes a naked 14 year old girl. Full frontal and all. There was a man, his wife and his two young daughters that walked out of the theater ashamed. Someone yelled out, "I going to kill the director after this!" After the film, Foldes' was scared shitless at the Q and A. Some of the cast and crew were there and lambasted him and his film. People litteraly were going to splay this guy alive on stage! Atomic could have grabbed a print of "I Drink Your Blood" as a substitute which is classic camp material. A kid's grandafther is forecbly given LSD by a group of hippies, so he injects a rabies virus into his sister's meat pies(Ha, and I only threw rocks at windows at the people I didn't like!) and gives thems to the hippies to eat. Insanity ensues as the rabies sets in and you have most of the town running around with shaving cream around their mouths trying to kill everyone in sight! Like I said in my other post, we live in a society where we can show all kinds of mutilation and dismemberment, but sexual scenes are taboo. I did like "Titty Titty Bang Bang II: The Search For Curley's Gold" also. I think "Titty Titty Bang Bang III: Titties With A Vengeance" was photographed well, but they needed a better plot. Too Wagnerian for me.
Not a glamorous fight by Redbox	Jul 15th, 2001 04:17:38 PM
Unfortunately, with a name like that, Jesse won't udder a peep. There is just to much the press can do with "THE BODY DEFENDS VAMPIRE HOOKERS". It's like McVeigh and Death penalty opponents. People sometimes are afraid to defend the 2 Live Crews of this world. Personally, I'd rather fight for "The Tin Drum" or "Requiem For a Dream" but the principal is what matters not the defendant. Government has no business defining art or for that matter media.
Hey Slugworth, you're sooo cute when you froth at the mouth like by Huneybee	Jul 15th, 2001 04:42:04 PM
How ironic, Uncapie, you should mention frothing at the mouth as that was the first thing which came to mind when I read Slugworth
test1 by Huneybee	Jul 15th, 2001 04:44:44 PM

The Duchess Hath Spoken... by Slugworth	Jul 15th, 2001 05:12:41 PM
I agree it is certainly a dead topic when am the one person must rely exclusively on insults rather than ideas. I am glad you found my rants amusing, they were designed that way. Sorry about pissing on your bushes that night. Damn do you hold a grudge.
Hypocrisy? by Gilbert	Jul 15th, 2001 07:22:08 PM
Harry badmouthing someones trying to kill a theater because they want to show an exploitation film and then deleting a pointless post that just goes out of its way to call him an incompetent fat fuck is pretty fuckin' far away from hypocrisy in its highest form, hypocrisy in its highest form is something that would fit into old ironic EC horror comics. Harry deleting certain talkbacks is like hanging up on someone who calls you up and screams various oscenities about your personal weaknesses. He lets people come on here and disagree with him on a site that he owns and puts hard work into, this is his property as much as his house might be, and you don't let people come into your house and punch you in the face and belittle all your deco. The cops act equivelant of that is like if you hire a housekeeper and they throw away all your things that they don't like very much, which is much worse than making someone not make fun of you.
Hey... by HERACLITUS	Jul 16th, 2001 05:34:33 AM
I think the point that we're all missing here is that the Black Forest Inn rules. Try their delicious Dark Gosser, or the Black Forest Inn Hausplatte... Mmmmm...
Dear Mr. Bong, by Huneybee	Jul 16th, 2001 10:17:58 AM
That is so "been there done that", don't you agree? I just thought I would call the whole thing an "abortion" of justice (or whatever, somehow an abortion of city ordinances just doesn't have the same ring to it) and see what happens.____And thank-you Slugworth, for the idea for my next talkback alias when Huneybee gets banned for using the "a" word____it was fun, y'all...____A Bee in search of the next flower to pollinate
Don't mention it... by Slugworth	Jul 16th, 2001 11:30:20 AM
Hell, if get banned I might have to become PhD-BlatantStupidity. Its has a nice ring, no? :^)
Follow-up to Dr. Scarity by mlif	Jul 16th, 2001 01:51:06 PM
As Dr. Scarity's assistant, I have to concure. Furthermore, you will note, upon careful reading of the press release, which AICN posted verbatim, there is nothing that says the show was shut down for it's content. It clearly states what reasons were given for the show being shut down. It also states that the show that would have played that night was "Vampire Hookers". Is there controversy? Yes. Is it about censorship? No. Never was. Some people just choose read what they want to hear I guess. To clarify a few other questions that were not clear in either the press release or our website: Atomic Shock Theatre has done many different types of shows at many different venues (indoor and outdoor). Sometimes we book them ourselves, sometimes people invite us to host their own programs. The Guerilla Drive-in is a program we invented which combines our ordinary spook show, with an outdoor screening of a film. We have been doing various shows, of various different types since 1999. The Guerilla Drive-in started at the Grainbelt Brewery in the summer of 2000, with two films "Go To Hell" and "Scared to Death". These were free shows, which we did as an experiment to see how well they would be received. The series was revived after it proved very popular with fans and members of the local community. We began again the first weekend in June. Vampire hookers would have been our 4th (or a planned 6) Guerilla Drive-in show of this season. Thaddeus Goul
Don't dare protest in Mpls by jskerr	Jul 16th, 2001 10:59:30 PM
You guys don't know the half of the shit these idiot ja-ja's (that's pronounced Yah yah like in Fargo) pull around here. When there was a genetic research conference around here, the city outlawed wearing a gas-mask in public and mounted cops chased crowds of teenagers through parks spraying them with mace and whacking them with batons. When some hippies set up a shantytown near a public park to protest a destructive highway dept project they mobilized hundreds of cops and spent $400,000 to make 50 arrests and crush the buildings they nailed together. Uncapie is undoubtedly right about the buzzword Hooker doing all the damage. These knee-jerking morons jump on anything they don't immediately recognize. When I tell them about any of my geeky hobbies, they invariably issue the standard minnesota curse: "Oh, that's different."
Well, I'm Jeremy Stomberg and I'm RUNNING for City Council in Mi by 433	Jul 18th, 2001 07:07:10 PM
The MCDA isn't clean on this one. Atomic Shock Theater has obtained the proper permits from the city to show films. The department AST got the permits from FORWARDS EACH AND EVERY ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH MCDA PROPERTY TO THE MCDA! Yet they say that the first they heard of it was the weekend before (CONvergence weekend) in the paper? Come on! The MCDA needs to get out of the landlord business. There's a way that it can be done. MCDA property is public property, the public (with proper permits) should be allowed to use it.

Talkbacks

The City of Minneapolis Shuts Down Outdoor Movie Shows... Barricade Ordered by Police

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks