Slog Comments

 

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Westlake, son! 1
Whatever. It's a movie theater not a morgue. Do the families want to raze the theater and replace it with a memorial instead?
Posted by Westlake, son! on January 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
2
@1: Agreed. Talk about your manufactured outrage.
Posted by bigyaz on January 3, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
3
If they hadn't invited them, would there be an outraged?

Will the survivors's families hire a lawyer to sue the theater for a hundred million dollars?
Posted by GermanSausage on January 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Rotten666 4
I really don't see any issue here.
Posted by Rotten666 on January 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 5
@ 1 and 2, while the families' letter sounds like something that people who are party to a lawsuit might say, you have to admit that inviting the relatives of the murder victims to see a movie in the theater where the murders happened is fucking insensitive and tone-deaf.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM · Report this
6
Seriously. What did they want the theater to do? I'll bet that, other than something like close forever, they would have done so.
Posted by Sean on January 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM · Report this
7
Manufactured outrage from the Stranger? From Chuckie "if you look at me cross-eyed you're a racist" Mudede?

NOOOOO!!!!
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on January 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM · Report this
8
Yeah, I have to say that a movie theater has only a few things they can offer anybody. Free movies, or popcorn, or milk duds. that's about it. They have to reopen the theater, unless they want that franchisee to go out of business. I actually think it was just fine to make the offer, and just fine for the families to say no and be upset, but the world has to go on.
Posted by Chris Jury http://www.thebismarck.net on January 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM · Report this
9
"Quest for profits"? What proposed mechanism for profits would this be? It didn't sound like they were going to put ads on them as they walked in. They may thought to get a little good press, but any company that does any gesture expects that and as long as the gesture is desired they get no shit about it. This was tone-deaf mind you, considering that theater is about the last place these families want to ever see, but setting this up as some kind of exploitative plot by the theater is stretching it the way only lawyers seeking lawsuits usually do.
Posted by Lynx on January 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM · Report this
10
@3. Yep.

Invite them, outrage.

Ignore them, outrage.

Classic lose-lose situation.

Posted by bareboards on January 3, 2013 at 12:31 PM · Report this
biffp 11
@10, that seems pretty dismissive. The families got an invite during the holidays from a chain that refused to meet with them after the shootings.
Posted by biffp on January 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 12
I forgot I'm in America. the whole notion of delicacy is strange for many of its citizens..
Posted by Charles Mudede on January 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM · Report this
13
@12- They most certainly could have just quietly reopened the theater and hoped no one noticed. It was a ham-fisted gesture, and clearly one that didn't pan out for them, but I kinda applaud them for taking the risk, trying to do something (not a very sensitive thing, but still something) for the families. Maybe next time they'll run their big idea past a couple rational human beings next time...but fuck, at least they tried.
Posted by Chris Jury http://www.thebismarck.net on January 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM · Report this
14
This is the same Cinemark that appears to have offered to pay any funeral expenses incurred by the victims' families not covered by the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora…

Anyway.
Posted by Gloria on January 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM · Report this
schmacky 15
Charles @12...this is a fucking corporate entity we're talking about, not a citizen (and there is a difference no matter what SCOTUS says). Americans (or anyone with common sense) know this was a decision driven by an unwieldy conglomeration of people with a variety of motives both noble and profit-driven, not the least of which was the desire not to be sued. Hence, we are prepared to offer Cinemark a little slack. It's not about a lack of "delicacy," it's about not being naive.
Posted by schmacky on January 3, 2013 at 1:36 PM · Report this
Rotten666 16
I mean, their loved ones just got shot down like dogs. I'd like to think I would have a little perspective in such a situation, rather than rage against the movie theater.

Posted by Rotten666 on January 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM · Report this
venomlash 17
u wot m8
Posted by venomlash on January 3, 2013 at 2:26 PM · Report this
Tracy 18
@1 I don't understand their outrage at all. This seemed like a nice offer. Perhaps the families are upset that it was sent via email, rather than a call or letter? I'm sure most (if not all) businesses that saw violent tragedy have had a remembrance memorial day. The report I saw showed the letter and it looked to be from some sort of Victim Association, and made mention of counseling services and other helpful things. Felt like a nice thing to do, and only right to invite these folks. I can understand if they chose not to attend, but I don't think it was wrong to invite them to a memorial event as the business reopens. (Weren't similar things done at the coffee shop in Lakewood, for example? Some type of remembrance event for the fallen).
Posted by Tracy on January 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM · Report this
Tracy 19
I do completely understand that the families wouldn't want to ever go see a movie there. But I don't understand them being upset to be invited to this event. Seems nicer than just reopening the cinema without any type of event.
Posted by Tracy on January 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM · Report this
20
It was pretty tone-deaf. If they wanted to actually do something respectful, maybe a nice brass plaque in the lobby, dedicating the theater to their memory or something.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on January 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM · Report this
21
Looking at the comments on huffpo and on this story in the Seatrle Times, the overwhelming majority of commenters line up behind the theater on this one. The theater didn't contact the family members because they feared a lawsuit, which has of course happened. They wouldn't have sued if they got a condolence call earlier? Yeah right. Cinemark is culpable here for what reason again? Sometimes terrible things happen and there isn't a faceless corporation or government to blame.
Posted by PoliGeek on January 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 22
Almost as stunning as promoting Communism despite the fact that it has KILLED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, hundreds of times more than the Americans who have been killed by privatly owned firearms in the last century.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 3:10 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 23
KILLED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE


Citation needed.
Posted by keshmeshi on January 3, 2013 at 3:28 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 24
@23

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America (mainly Cuba)
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]

-The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression Edited by St├ęphane Courtois
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM · Report this
25
@24,

Please. How many millions have Americans killed overseas in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? How many Native Americans? How many Blacks (slavery and pre-civil rights era)? How many people killed by gun violence per year?

How did communism pop up in this thread? Relevance?
Posted by Patricia Kayden on January 3, 2013 at 6:26 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 26
@ 24, actions taken by the government of the USA have killed 160 million people since its founding, according to an estimate I read back in the 90s. That beats out your list by nearly double.

So, what's your point?
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 3, 2013 at 10:13 PM · Report this

Add a comment