Who’s Calling Who a Jackass?
Greg Boardman, a Fresno, CA resident who owns a theater in Hoopeston, IL, doesn’t like Jackass 2 or Beer Fest. Not only does he not-like them, he not-likes them so much that he chose to shut down his theater to make sure no one could see them in a small town 2,000 miles away, either. Lame.
‘Hat tip to Anwyn, who has a more sympathetic take.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pm
That’s why it’s called free enterprise. Those who run it are allowed to run it as they see fit.
Good for him for taking a stand he believes in.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
He didn’t shut down his theaters to make sure no one could see them; there was a theater showing them just twenty-five miles away. On any country roads I’ve driven on, that’s about a fifteen-minute drive. He shut down the theaters because he didn’t want to participate in showing those movies. It wasn’t even a political statment, but a choice to take personal responsibility.
I don’t have a problem with either of the movies he refused to show, but I also don’t have a problem with him refusing to show them.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:41 pm
CJHill: who ever said anything about free vs. unfree enterprise? You’ve completely missed the point. No one is trying to sue the guy for acting like a schmuck, merely pointing out what a schmuck he is. That said, this guy’s bad business model, which essentially turns on its head the adage that the customer is always right, is a prime example of the kind of business that generally does not do well in the free market. It only works in his case because he has no competitors.
DR: yes, he did shut down his theaters to make sure no one could see the movies that he personally thought they shouldn’t see. That another theater at least a half hour away (Mapquest says to allow 42 mins., which sounds about right for the country roads I drive every day) did show the movie is beside the point. Boardman doesn’t own that theater, so why should he get any credit for the fact that they don’t have the same bug up their ass that he has up his?
October 1st, 2006 at 11:11 pm
So, no one is allowed to let his personal sense of morality affect his business? I read two newspaper pieces and listened to his interview on NPR. It’s his theater. He didn’t like the product being offered, and he decided to forego the income from his theater for two weeks because of it.
I think he’s perfectly clear on the concept. “If you want to see it, see it somewhere else. I don’t want to show material I consider to be crap in my privately-owned theater.” If he merely managed the place, then you’d have a leg to stand on, but I thought you grasped the concept of private property. If he didn’t want to show “The Passion of the Christ” for the same reason, he’d be right – for the same reason. It’s his theater. He decides what is and what isn’t acceptable.
IT’S HIS PROPERTY. IT’S HIS OPINION.
If you want the movie run in that house, buy his theater from him. If you want the movie run in that town, open your own theater.
“Unclear on the concept”? Not at all. But just because someone speaks doesn’t mean that everyone is required to give them a forum from which to do so.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 am
I’ll bet the narrow minded idiot lives in Clovis…. it did say “near Fresno”….
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:33 am
Kevin, go back and re-read my post. Nowhere in it do I call for a lawsuit, a new regulation, or anything else that would impinge on Mr. Boardman’s God-given right to hold a stupid opinion, make an ass of himself in public, or run his business badly. He does not, however, have a right not to be criticized for it. Or maybe you’d understand it better if I put it in your terms:
Therefore, by your own reasoning, I must be “right.” Right?
Of course, I’m not really going to argue on that basis, as property rights only mean you have the legal right to do something, not that you are right in any other sense of the word, and certainly not that you are above criticism for it. Clear on the concept, now?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:07 am
So let me guess X, you were in Hoopeston and couldn’t see the movie and it pissed you off?
I’m trying… and so far failing… to figure out what makes the guy a ‘jackass’. He didn’t make a big deal of temporarily closing the theatre, as evidenced by the townspeople worrying that he had closed it for real. He didn’t spit in his customer’s faces by refusing to carry a movie they were clamoring to see, evidenced by the support he received and the relatively few complainers. He didn’t deny his customers a product they absolutely positively had to have, notwithstanding the complaints of the 30 year old welder who, apparently, wasn’t complaining because he couldn’t see the movie but because the town’s kids were left roaming the streets because the theatre was dark (of course, being R-rated, most of the town’s kids wouldn’t have been able to see the movie anyway).
Contrary to your implication, he didn’t seem to have made a bad business decision, as given the size of the theatre, the lack of interest in that movie and the dynamics of box-office revenues, how much money could he have been turning down? And, if the guy made a practice of screwing things up, economic theory suggests that someone else would have opened a theatre in the town by now.
So, for those of us who are old and slow, could you please S P E L L O U T the particulars of what this guy did that was oh-so wrong?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
The fact that he closed down his theater rather than show a movie that he didn’t like. What the hell does the guy think he is, some kind of gourmet chef? He runs a movie theater, for chrissakes. His job is to give the public what it wants, not what he wants them to want.
Economic theory, insofar as it predicts perfect competition, is not reality. If he tried a stunt like this in a competitive market, the market would punish him in no time flat. But with the nearest cinema 45 minutes away, and the cost of entry in that market relatively high, this isn’t a very competitive market, is it? That’s the only reason he can get away with running his business that badly.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 pm
“His job is to give the public what it wants…“.
If by ‘job’ you mean responsibility, are you suggesting that business owners are jackasses if they let their personal tastes and beliefs influence what they decide to offer for sale? Or is it only non-gourmet chefs who are supposed to just sell what people want to buy?
Do you blast musicians and writers for, in effect, going ‘dark’ by not putting out albums and books out as often as their fans want? Is JK Rowling soon to be added to your jackass hall of fame if she stops writing Harry Potter books after the next, and presumably last, one?
In any event, it would seem that the public wasn’t clamoring for that movie… it seems they were more worried about him closing permanently than they were about him not showing that particular movie… so just how was he failing to give the public what they wanted?
And wouldn’t the fact that the nearest theatre was 45 minutes away make it more likely that someone would have taken advantage of the situation if this guy was truly disappointing moviegoers in the town? Maybe you can enlighten us as to how the barriers to entry are so high for starting a movie theatre? You need a building. You need a popcorn machine. You need to arrange to get the films to show. You need a guy to take ticket stubs. Movie theatres get opened all the time…. it can’t be that difficult.
So back to wondering about why you got are riled up about this guy. You weren’t in Hoopeston trying to see that movie. Were you an investor and upset that this guy might have cost the movie approximately $24,000 (6,000 people in the town, half of whom are probably old enough to see the movie, seeing the movie an average of once each at an average ticket price of $8) in box office receipts?
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
That depends on the line of business, the specificity of their tastes, and too many other factors to count. I wouldn’t fault a gun shop for not carrying computers, but I would fault a gun shop for not carrying S&W because he personally doesn’t own any S&W models and can’t imagine why any of his customers would want to – even though he knows a fair number of them do.
And what’s this “beliefs” bit everyone keeps bringing up? The guy’s a businessman, not clergy. Does anyone really think Boardman boarded up his theater because he’s a member of the Church of No-Jackass-Unless-It’s-Me? Puh-leeze.
I’m tempted to say something about apples and oranges, but am worried an orange might be insulted by the analogy.
He wasn’t “failing” those who didn’t want to see the movie anyway. From their perspective, it didn’t matter if the theater stayed open or not. He did fail those who would have liked to see either of the movies that don’t get his personal seal of approval, and either did not see them or spent almost as much extra time driving as they spent watching the film itself.
In a larger city, sure. In a small, remote town, probably not. Small towns can only support so many theaters. Better this guy should sell his to someone who wants to make money instead of a pointless point.
I’m not that riled up. I’m not losing any sleep over this moron. I don’t lose sleep over most things I blog about, for that matter.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
And he is completely right! Every real Christian would do the same! As a Christian and member of One Million Moms, I fully support him! How dare you critisize him for that? This courageous man is willing to sacrifice the profit in order to protect community from the influence of bad tasteless movies like Jacka**. No wonder, our Republican party is doing not so well lately! For the money and popularity these people are eager to abandon values of our fathers!
October 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Dorothy, I’m trying to figure out if you and that kooky organization are for real, or if you are a left-wing nut attempting to discredit the right by posting insane ramblings while pretending to be one of us. Which is it? Assuming it’s the former, and that you honestly believe the popularity of Jackass 2 has a f’ing thing to do with the Republicans’ lousy polling numbers right now, then perhaps you’d care to explain how the Republicans managed to do so well in 2002, when the original Jackass movie was released. If Jackass 1 hadn’t been so wildly popular then, there wouldn’t be a Jackass 2 now, would there? And what the hell is up with the asterisks? I can understand bleeping out profanity, but there’s nothing profane or objectionable about the word “jackass” – unless, of course, it hits too close to home.
“One Million Moms” indeed. Come back when you find the other 999,999.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Re Dorothy … what’s that thing the kids are doing now? All the rage?
Oh yeah. I condemn it.