Since this happened in Manchester, UK should be the ones who decides what information should be released, and when it should be released. Something like this should not be a typical competition between news papers where the goal is to provide the information first. If the UK don't want certain information to be released, there is a reason for it, and other countries should respect that.
Ain'tNoAngel I believe if it's the information between the Area and such yes. But if it's intel that could have connections with other people should be not released but given to the USA since USA is the leading force against the war of terror. (Before you ask I'm American)
the reason is that the legal systems in the UK and the US work differently, now that the information about the bomb is public knowlege, it could risk the conviction of people involved in the bombing in a UK court of law
Last night on the Stephen Colbert's late show, he was interviewing Robin Wright (who's in the movie), and he said that "this is a badass superhero that little girls can look up too." *crowd applause.* And after the crowd stops clapping, she says, "and for little boys too." Superheroes are made to inspire *everyone,* whether you are a boy or girl.
Ender Skies Wonder Woman was made for feminism when it was needed, she was a strong independent woman, fighting, against evil and kicking some ass to empower women.
That's funny because Wonder Woman was always, from conception a sexually objectified character and it's amusing to me how she's now a symbol of feminism.
Mundy Lunes Most comic book writers and readers in the time when Wonder Woman was created were male. Over the years this has changed and so has the character. But even still, she was from day one represented as a strong, independent Woman who came from a place where only female warriors lived. Sure, she was drawn with her tits showing, but that doesn't mean she was objectified, it means women have tits.
I has a friend that was murdered and the killer got to walk free because the local paper publish crime scene photos so his "confession " throw out because the details were public.
As someone who lives in Austin Texas, this is Alamo Drafthouse. This is their thing. They take themed events literally so far. They are currently setting up a Pirates of the Caribbean movie where you MUST dress like a pirate or get kicked out. It makes sense for Wonder Woman, a movie where a female that originates in a land of NO MEN, have a woman only screening because it's kinda funny. Honestly they're probably the best movie theater in existence with the strictest policies ever and it makes watching movies so much better.
Person: What news channel do u watch. CNN, Fox, NBC? Me: DeFranco Person: What!? Me: You heard me. edit: This was just a joke btw for any1 fighting with another.
Probably a bad idea tbh You'll miss most of the real news if you only watch Defranco, there's only so much he can talk about every day and there's so much going on in the world
Romy R Revision books? huh? what's that? GOOGLE, ENLIGHTEN ME *weeps silently, and whispers* I guess this is another opportunity to disappoint my parents
It's funny to know people make a problem out of selected women's only showings while Belgium's Kinepolis theaters have a monthly Ladies at the Movies event and nobody's bothered by it :)
That's a horrible argument. You cannot justify discrimination or atrocities just because it is the norm elsewhere. We could apply this same logic to women oppressed in the middle east Either way, it's the principal, no one cares about the showing
I remember a few years back, some guy opened a barbar shop exclusively for men. It specialized in shavings and after care as well as short lenght haircuts. The shop was basically designed to be a little man-cave. And it was men-only, girlfriends and wives not allowed other than sitting in a waiting area. A week or so later, the owner had gotten so much hate, the government officials had gotten so many emails, that the shop was forced to close down. I dont mind ladies nights at the bar or womens only screenings, as long as you are consistent in the belief that exclusion can be okay in certain situations. But as that one comment said, i cant help but wonder the absolute shitstorm that would take place if a screening for a movie was men only. Its hypocrisy and its disgusting in all its forms.
DeaminZaints I know there used to be women's nights at the theaters around me growing up, not sure if there still are, but I always thought that was a pretty normal thing. Honestly I see 'girls night' stuff all the time, I'm surprised not to see more men only clubs or bar nights. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Hollow Moon But are they advertising haircuts for men (which is a different product to haircuts for women) or are their salons "Men only"? if a woman enters, will she politely be asked to leave? Im gonna go with no... A product advertised for men, is not the same as a store exclusively for men, or a theater exclusively for women. So i was saying its hypocrisy, and im standing by that.
That commenter saying "imagine if there were men only" are you kidding me? there are entire multi million dollar businesses purely around "mens" clubs which were a crazy magnet for abusing and terrorizing women as well, the difference of women and men spaces is that men make men only spaces for fun, women make women only spaces for saftey... :/
Phil, I was just wondering if you could talk about the ISIS attacks that happened in the Philippines this week (as in immediately after the Manchester attack). No one else has even mentioned the attack, aside from 'Now This' on Snapchat ***correction: it has been featured on other websites, but from what I've seen it hasn't been on any news *shows*
UPDATE: just now June 6, 2017 the local army seized a cache of money and checks amounting to 79 million Php ($1.5m usd approximately) in one of the Maute group's machine gun posts. From whom or where the money came from has yet to be revealed and at initial glance seems to be funding for their activities.
My opinion on the leaks to do with the the Manchester bombing is that the UK police shared that information with the understanding it would be secure. I also feel that releasing the name of the perpetrator was too early and could hinder catching all of those responsible by letting them know who you suspect and the evidence you have. When it comes down to it it is a betrayal of trust on the part of the US. I wouldn't be upset if it was a political topic but this was a terrorist attack with people dead and that is serious enough threat that I can't condone the leaks even though I often support leaking information. As for the Wonder Woman thing, the movie is interesting enough although I'm not a DC fan. What annoys me about it is the double standard and the fact that if it were reversed people would be up in arms. Doesn't affect me so I don't care that much but I find hypocrisy annoying.
Xenos Tyrant I agree about the information being leaked. Sometimes information is withheld for a reason. It isn't done to hurt the public but to protect them from future attacks or copycats. Releasing it early can hinder law enforcement agencies greatly. As far as the movie goes, my husband agrees with you completely and I won't go without him so it doesn't really affect me either.
I agree that the printing of that information was irresponsible during an active investigation. The free press should not be releasing investigation evidence hours or days after a terrorist attack.
With the leaks of the evidence, I think the real reason that people over here are pissed off is that it is criminal evidence. There will be court cases and charges made to the people involved if any evidence has been leaked to the press that evidence is now unusable in a court of law. This means that the people involved have a lower chance of going to jail.
I want most information to come out eventually, just after the investigation. We don't want any possible suspects to know that they might be investigated. What the public sees as just a little debris that does matter to them, a suspect could see as a part of the bomb that could tie them to the attack, telling them they should run. News readers didn't really gain anything by seeing these photos, but the suspects may have. I'm all for holding the information until the case is pretty much closed
Precisely, every scrap of info released just informs the culprit how best to avoid capture. More worryingly, having already proven their proficiency with explosives, if they now feel cornered what's to stop them attempting to take out even more innocents with them? I'd much rather they think they've got away scot-free right up until the moment the police kick down their door.
The leaked photos of the evidence definitely should not have been published. While it is in no was disrespectful, this could have potentially informed accomplices of the bomber what the police know and could have helped them get rid of the evidence. I believe that anything that could help should be kept, for the most part, a secret. EDIT: Grammar.
Horrid57 it's an ongoing investigation. Definitely not helping by disclosing how much the investigation had come. Apparently nothing was learned from the last time news prematurely disclosed info and put people's lives at risk.
I agree, with something like this people should know the basic details; what happened, where it happened, what the impact is/how many injured or dead, if there might be more attacks closely following it, and what you can do to help and stay safe. Beyond the basic details, I think everything should be withheld until a later date when the authorities can do a full press release, where everything is shared openly.
Joining the elite is a solution but not really a good one IMO. This is more an issue that needs better attention from RUclips. There shouldn't be a need to say "Remember to like, comment and subscribe (plus go to this other website that isn't RUclips and support me there) because RUclips isn't giving you a way to support my content otherwise." in every video just to survive. It seems silly they wouldn't want a direct cut instead of this tracking likes, subscriptions and such. Plus there would be no advertisement backlash for the content.
Not unfair. Just business. Phil talks about controversial topics, and most advertisers do not want to be associated with it. Nothing you do is going to change anything. Join DeFranco elite to show your support: defrancoelite.com/
Ghostbusters reboot complained that sexism stopped men wanting to watch female leads, now there are people that actually plan on turning men away from a movie because of a female lead.
That's a great way to trivialize the issue. Let's put it in another context. Life for blacks must be pretty good when your biggest worry is being excluded from a whites only theater.
Bracetty Bracetty ur stupid...it is that way...thats how it starts...its like now every protagonist has to include some women power bs...n it is the same thing..its discrimination...how is a man being present going to destroy the movie watching experience...i hope the 1 man that goes to tge showing is uninvited and accompanied with an assault rifle
As a woman who lives in the Austin area and has gone to the drafthouse many times, I am a little angry but mostly confused about this showing. If its supposed to represent the exclusion that women often feel, I do not agree with that. I am not saying women are not excluded from things for reasons other than the fact that they are women (as I have experienced that myself), but I am saying that this does not help bring equality for women. All it does is make some people angry and it does not help the argument for equality. The part about this story that makes me the most angry is that if they are donating proceeds to help women why are they excluding paying customers? I also cannot imagine the group of people who came up with this idea, who goes "you know what? let's exclude men from this! That will show them how serious we are about supporting women's equality!!!" Especially since the drafthouse has made an effort to be all inclusive this move just doesn't make sense socially or economically. I guess I just don't understand and I am the one being close minded here.
WhereYouAda I agree, it doesn't make sense that they'd exclude a demographic who's money could also go to the same charity. and I could be wrong, but I have a feeling more men would be interested in seeing a new comic movie than most women. but I guess the charity can just miss out on those extra funds :/
Yeah, what about single mothers who would like to take their kids? Or guys who want to go with their gf/bf os just men who enjoy DC's movies (which is the majority of DC audience)? They're being ridiculous
The only difference between Alamo's Women only Screening of Wonderwoman and a bridal shower party is that in the latter a man or group of men entertainers are the highlights, while on the former is a woman in hot costume. 😆 😅 😂
Because of that, I can say that bridal showers are the first form of sexist movements, abusing male entertainers in exchange for a small amount of money and huge sexual satisfaction hahaha
Being in Manchester, I find it incredibly irresponsible for the leaks to have happened. We've seen several police raids happen over the past few days in the city based off of intelligence gathered at the scene. This intelligence is then shared openly with the US under the 'fiveeyes' which is supposed to remain confidential. So seeing leaks come from an international intelligence partner could put the on going investigations at risk or worse still, the suspects could receive prior knowledge of police raids and surveillance through news outlets and escape or leave traps For it to happen once was wrong, but for it to happen again and coming hours after UK politicians went on the news condemning the leaks is unforgivable. If this should happen again I believe all intelligence sharing with the US should be halted until the source can be identified and steps are taken to prevent further leaks This is completely unacceptable!
it's a suicide bombing, the 'suspect' is DEAD... and what's wrong with telling the whole world about the suspect's name? it's not like the suspect's accomplices hadn't already on their getaway after their friend did the bombing... it's much better to spread it around that the suspect of such crimes could be easily identified so that future criminals will be deterred from following their path...
Fionn Burrows Hasn't the UK been paying attention to our shitshow of a president? Why they gave that info to the US in the 1st place is beyond me. I hope that, in the future, the UK will kept their Intel close until they deem it wise to share
I like how the president is the one to blame for all this and not the people who took oath of secrecy to keep their mouth shut. Its also a secret UK and her allies needs to know because they may be planning on different attacks in different areas around the world, example being boston marathon. State of US as a country is alright, and in fact in terms of anti-terrorist movement as a whole have improved. Keep their intel closed........ i love when people think that withholding information helps anyone. I am sure its the leftist whistle blower that wants to keep on leaking information so that leader of a country looks bad, and that person seems to have strong ties with NY Times because a lot of "anonymous" leaks starts there, and only way to prevent this is to make President trump look even worse, which is to investigate and persecute NY times.
If you can't handle a tuff question, why the hell are you running for office of any kind? And just the fact that they feel the need to mention that he's liberal is an obvious tactic. This has nothing to do with politics, it's an assault.
Hey Philip, I just wanted to say I'm a little sick, and you brighten up my day every day! No matter what the topic is on, you are funny, and make everything better!
The reason people are annoyed at the leaks is that the us shared the names and photo before the uk did. Before the families knew. See in the uk we have a system. The victims and their families know info before the rest of us. Yes we are all kept in the dark until this occurs but we know the people who need it the most are given the care they need and the police are able to focus on their investigation without being hounded. The rest of us get the information once it's been cleared for release. Security risks aside you shared information about someone who had murdered others before the families had been told. The us would have been told these as the uk were gathering info. To ensure the us were not also under threat. And just in case you STILL Dont get it? A woman was on the news Monday begging for info for her daughter. she was one of the mothers whose daughter had been killed and she released that info Tuesday. Monday the us shared info Monday' before this woman knew her daughter was dead the us were telling folks "people had been murdered by this guy see what killed them" Would the uk have released it? I don't know but we never got the chance to know as apparently the uk police were on a timer to release information The press fucked up and needs to take responsibility. Yes you were disrespectful. Apologise for being scum.
People should just respect the innocent who have died, this includes sharing the info before it's supposed to be public. The family should get to know before the rest of the world. People in the US don't need to apologize, they had no control over the media they consume, it's more of an issue with journalist and police/investigators in the UK not honoring this rather than American politicians or news.
The issue is the press in the US has a problem with confirming the stories and trying to be the first to post on it. They don't care if they are right or on who it hurts. They've gotten innocent people arrested and killed in the past. They wouldn't care. Unless enough people call them on it. Then they just delete the article or tweet. Trying to act like it never happened. CNN for example.
That one dude saying he was going to campaign against the theater needs to take a chill pill The only way my ass would ever campaign against a movie theater is if they decided to up the price of popcorn from it's low low price of 20 dollars to 30 dollars
The women's only screening of Wonder woman isn't that bad by itself, but if there was a men's only screening of Thor or something, the backlash would be immense.
Seth It's almost like there's inequality of the sexes and one has more representation and power in the media than the other. Weird. The women's only screening of Wonder Woman isn't bad whatsoever. All but about 3 superheroes in movies are men, and no superhero movie as of late has starred a woman until now- yet men feel butthurt because they can't go to this ONE screening of this ONE movie? Can't women have anything?
Maybe because (here's a newsflash) not that many women give a shit about comics? It's been a male driven industry since its inception and a lot of fans (Who are male) would love to see that movie. It's not helping your "cause" if you fight fire with fire.
Discrimination that occurred in the past does not justify using discrimination today. How is anything supposed to progress if there is always a constant back and forth of "They did it to us; we get to do it to them". "We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." ~Martin Luther King Jr.
Skiddlz11 only idiots are using past discrimination of women as an excuse to not let men see a movie on a certain night. The smart people don't give a shit either way as it does not affect them. I suggest you get riled up over something that matters and not a movie screening
So you snarkily insult the people having an issue with the exclusion yet you apparently give enough of a crap about this to comment and shame others for caring about this matter. By your own admittance you must not be smart or you wouldn't care about the people that cared about this and thus wouldn't waste time here like we all are doing.
As much as I dislike fox news, credit where it's due. I'm glad they'd stand behind a fellow reporter despite the fact they're not technically on the "same side". It's kind of sad that having simple integrity is noteworthy nowadays but all the same, I'm glad they showed they had it.
+Kitta Here is the statistics shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ I was surprised myself when I actually viewed it, they put out balanced and fair coverage after all.
While the news crew corroborated the story, their tone changed the next morning on Fox and Friends. They aren't giving any attention to their own story.
Having an equal amount of "positive" and "negative" stories doesn't necessarily mean it was balanced coverage. There are different degrees by which you can measure positivity and negativity. I've seen some of their "negative" coverage, saying they were wearing kid gloves would be putting it mildly a lot of the time.
"Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic." So unless you have a better example of a mainstream news network who cover both the negative and positive equally if* not as close to half, Fox News would probably remain the definition of the fairest and balanced news network.
am I the only one that died at how serious Philip DeFranco was before and after the wrestling clip? Obviously, he isn't watching the clip while he is recording but damn I was not expecting that haha
US and UK investigations work very differently - It seems as though in the US any potential evidence, whether it's confirmed or not, is published. UK officials are very careful about putting information out before they know they can confirm it. That's why they didn't put the bombers name out there, because they couldn't confirm he was the attacker at the time US press leaked his name. And with the leaking of crime scene evidence - That information is meant to be shared so that country officials can show one another something they notice about the evidence that perhaps no one else has seen (such as how a detonator works etc), it is shared in order to keep multiple countries safe and not just the country that was attacked. That's why it shouldn't have been leaked (plus due to any distress it may cause the victims to lean information from a source that they aren't working with)
I am still a little fuzzy on who leaked. They seem to be implying that the US government leaked. Yet is was the Brits that stated that they are looking into who leaked the information.
it was somewhere along the line or so i heard, UK police informed relevant authorities in the US and somewhere from there someone leaked to US Press.. but your right its fuzzy, thats why they're looking into it - but from what i know (although i am british, so bias news quite likely) is that it was a leak in the US
rufusprime99 British authorities shared intel with the US (they do this all the time as the OP stated) who then shared it with the media when they shouldn't have.
We also share that information with others in confidence that it won't be leaked or shared before confirmation. If a country goes against that, then they have lost our trust and confidence.
In the US, it's also meant to not be published. But a lot of journalists don't care, and if something gets leaked by a dirty or careless cop, it's most likely going to get published even if it could ruin the investigation.
At the end of the day, it's just a movie screening, and it isn't going to ruin anyone's life. But people do have a valid point when they say that the outrage would be much greater if it were the other way around. Just like how this screening isn't going to ruin anyone's life, an all-male movie screening wouldn't ruin anyone's life either. I don't understand the argument that this is "giving men a little bit of a taste of what women go through." How exactly? When are women ever told that they're not allowed to go into a certain movie theater? What "women's issue" is this equivalent to? The only thing that I can think of is that if a movie appeals more to men, then women may not be inclined to go and see it. But that's a case of women choosing not to do something. Any woman who wants to see the new Transformers, or Batman V Superman, or any other movie still can. And I doubt very many men were going to see Sex and the City. Even if there was an actual problem of women not being allowed into certain movie theaters, I've always thought that the "let's do it the other way around too" way of doing things was extremely childish and unproductive. I wouldn't want to force more men to become kindergarten teachers or force more women to become engineers to even out the earnings gap. I wouldn't want to make more women commit suicide so the suicide rates are equal. I wouldn't want to stop opposite-sex couples from getting married just because there are same-sex couples who can't get married. If you agree that something is unjust, why would you ever want to make it happen to more people rather than less? I also find it funny that the same people who will deride any distinction based on gender (things like boy's and girl's kids meals at McDonalds, or a female cartoon character being drawn with eyelashes, or a shirt that says "Boys Will be Boys", or even an expecting couple wanting to know the sex of their child) will be the same people who turn around and do things like this, where they draw needless lines based on gender so that they can "celebrate women." The theater goes out of its way to say that it will allow "anyone who _identifies_ as a woman" into the screening, so it seems like they are acknowledging that whether you were born with an innie or an outie doesn't make a difference in who you can be and what you can do, so why make an event like this specific to women then? And what about a "celebration of women" requires the audience to be all women? Why would it not be preferable to have everybody celebrating women? Isn't that kind of the end goal? Are there really any women who wouldn't have been able to appreciate seeing this movie knowing that somewhere in the same building as them a man is appreciating it too? As I said be fore, at the end of the day, it's nothing major, but it's definitely kind of silly, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense no matter what way you cut it. Though I suppose the fact that the proceeds are going to charity, however, does make this a little better. At least some good is coming out of it.
Again, not really sure I would agree with you. I don't think there would be equal outrage for a "kids only" viewing of a movie like "Rugrats". These are just events for promotion's sake, and if you're offended by them, maybe try having a tougher skin.
I don't hear any outrage over "women only" gyms... Nope... just professionally offended people crying loud about something that is minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
I think the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema is doing right by donating proceeds of their special screening to women's shelters. However, I think they should have done so by allowing all people to attend that night. That way the focus would have been more on the act of charity rather than excluding a specific gender.
I can only imagine how much bigger the backlash would be if they did a men's only screening with proceeds going to a men's rights organization.(I would say men's shelters but every time one opens feminists protest it til its shut down).
You can't selectively change genders in only parts of the story. People would be celebrating men if in the context of the situation it was previously 100% women and now a man was able to excel. Because the opposite is happening here. Wonder woman first came out in a comic in 1941 and has been a huge figure representing female empowerment ever since. I think by simply switching the word male for female you're being dismissive and ignorant about the history/role wonder woman has played in the lives of many women. Just my 2 cents though I don't mean to offend.
Fire, yeah if this was in the 40s, or hell even in the 80s, it would be empowering etc, now its like.. Pandering or something? But yeah I guess there are still issues today, and like 2 decent female super heroes for role models, although this move feels a bit like 'only female heroes can be role models for female humans', which feels like its implying male role models cant be role models for females, which seems a bit backwards.. Anyway, Alamo do all kinds of weird shit, and its all in good fun, just looking at the other weird shit they have done, I don't think they are trying to really push a social agenda, just make viral events for free publicity.
Yeah I see where you're coming from there. I do think it's kind of insane it took wonder woman over 60 years to get her own film. But maybe they are just pandering/making a viral event on purpose just to get publicity.
The most disheartening part of the Gianforte incident is that nobody knows if that will actually hurt him in the race. Hell there are probably people who will vote for him BECAUSE of the incident.
A Closer Look you act like Gianforte is the only candidate to have been "bird dog" by the press. If you can't handle the press, I doubt you'd have the temperament to serve and listen to your constituents.
A friend of mine was at the concert in Manchester, they noticed a lady with a very large being progressively shifty, they mentioned it to the security and they said 'yeah we'll keep an eye on it." Later she continued to appear more and more suspicious so they mentioned it to the security at the arena again and they said "maybe you're looking shifty, just shut up and enjoy the concert." They didn't investigate once, literally awful security there.
Hi, this will probably get lost but I'm actually a bartender at the Alamo Ritz (I also work elsewhere because the Ritz has limited hours, but it's a fun job). It was funny to see this story pop up, because as soon as we heard that we were doing the women's showing, our managers made a comment about how it would be a shitshow once people got sensitive about it. In fact, our company HQ is right down the street from the Ritz and we got the announcement from our founder, Tim League, personally when he got back from Cannes. For what it's worth, I know Tim and he's a super reasonable dude who just wanted to have a fun women's empowerment event; this was never supposed to be political. Staff will be instructed to check every ticket as the guests enter the theater, so any guys obviously trolling will be asked and encouraged to leave, though I have no idea how they plan on navigating the I-identify-as issue if it pops up. As far as people boycotting Alamo because of this, Tim doesn't care. Alamo is HUGELY popular in Austin and is well-known for not taking bullshit (feel free to look up the time we banned Madonna for texting during a movie), and more importantly, the company is so profitable right now it's ridiculous. They literally can't open up new locations fast enough to keep up with demand. I guarantee you that none of the higher-ups are worried about taking a hit on the financial front, and Tim has always been the kind of guy to put what he feels is morally important above profits anyway. One interesting aspect about this was the women-only servers, projectionists, etc. Like I mentioned, the Ritz has limited hours -- we don't show movies all day like most theaters, usually we start at 5 PM and have a lot of special events, so a lot of our staff are part-time, students, work at other locations, or have other jobs, and those who don't are always looking for extra hours because Alamo pays REALLY well for the industry. There were more than a few pissed off male employees about this, including our lead server who is gay and generally the type to be labeled an "SJW" or "feminist", who take some issue with being shut out of a shift that is going to most likely be really good money. Additionally, the Ritz is located on Sixth Street, which you are welcome to Google -- hint: it's known as Dirty Sixth for a reason. I'm willing to bet that a ton of drunk dudebros will make an event of the showing and I'll have to get involved with stopping at least one fight. Anyway, since I'm a bartender and not in the theater I'll be working the show, and I'm happy to report back with how it goes if anyone is interested.
I'm not expressing an opinion about the showing's policy either way. I think it's a complex issue that people on each side are attempting to oversimplify. Obviously I know that Alamo and Mr. League feel one way about it, but that does not extend to all Alamo employees, and as I said, my own perspective on it lies somewhere in the middle. Regardless, I love working for Alamo and I'll be at work that day. I'll probably clear $400 that night if I'm lucky.
A word of advice: Treat customers like they are valuable even when your services are in high demand. Thing may get tougher in the future and the same people you don't care about now may be the ones your begging to use your services later
shaun Brown It's not my company, and far from my decision. That said, the overwhelming majority of their local customers support the women's show -- you have to remember we're in Austin, one of the most liberal cities in the entire country. The people frustrated by this move are in the local minority and it's not close, and both shows sold out almost immediately. I can't speak for the rest of the locations across the country, but at least in Austin, they've received much more praise than criticism for this move. Again, I'm not expressing my personal opinion on this either way, just stating what I know to be true.
Phil was discussing major security leaks and the break between allied countries trust. The whole comment section is just bitching about a couple of movie screenings that probably don't affect you one way or the other.
THIS. jfc. just go to a different goddamn theater chain. like yeah, i dislike sjw culture completely, and sure, it seems kind of dumb to do this, but i mean... there are other theaters in town, and alamo is a private company that can do whatever they want. Can we talk about shit that actually matters, like international security and politicians trying to silence the press?
WhyYouTrappinSoHard I mean its a comic book character.. men being the majority fans of the this franchise. (not saying on prepose just the way it is) so isn't it already a sausage fest anyway? Personally, I think its a really stupid business move to alienate their many customers witn the shameless virtue signalling and use of identity politics.
They literally had a wine night at my local theatre for women to watch 50 Shades of Grey. I couldn't give less of a fuck, if they did the same thing with a mens night for sports I wouldn't care either way.
the thing is, on those night the men working there probably were still working there that time. This time male employees missout on work and money earned which is the problem
Don't you think zerovin, that they would've just switched shifts with the ladies? No loss of pay and they can do it again for a men only showing. Simple. 😁
I want to preface this by saying that I don't really care about the Women' movie night. Although, I feel like Phil glossed over the fact that the outrage is about double standards. Could you imagine the outrage if a movie theatre had a dudes and draft night?
Yeah, I was pretty surprised by Phil's lack of interest in that topic. I was expecting him to point out how glaringly obvious it is they're not helping any cause for equality and clearly just pandering to the more militant offshoot of feminism that's become so popular lately. That said, I guess he wanted focus on the question he asked and what none of the top comments seem to be about- the newspaper leak of the terrorist attack investigation.
Why would a movie have a dudes night? this double standard you claim are completely seperate varaibles. The why is important. Why does this movie in particular have a woman screening. This is Justice League doing this. Its wonder woman.
I tend to agree I don't see the issue with having a ladies night its not like its everyday, but i also agree if they tried to have a dudes only showing the amount of shit generated by that shit storm would be enough to clog everyone plumbing for weeks.
As for the Wonder woman showing.... I think what the business should have done is asked this simple question... if we held this event and entered any other segment of society. Men, Black, Asian, Tran-sexual, gay, White... would this still be OK? If the answer is no to any of them. Then the answer is No to all of them. That is how equality works.
casey anderson There are queer events all the time so... generally, people don't ask if your straight but if you went around telling everyone you were straight you'd probably be asked to leave.
If you truly believe this you're what's wrong with society these days. Plain and simple what their doing is just a fun few showings for just women, because it's a woman superhero and they wanna celebrate that because unlike anything else you brought up a woman superhero solo movie doesn't come up very often and why not let just women have a night or two to embrace that together without the PC universe making this into something it's not.
Can you cry harder? We still have a drought in California. Guys who cry about this kind of shit, and pretend they need more "equality" are so insanely pathetic. But they're easy to spot.. they all have the same 1990s, shit-stain goatee rofl!
I had to go (I mean I didn't mind going, but it was an assignment) to a LGBT film festival for a class and nobody was excluded at all, this is just silly
superman wasn't created as a symbol of male pride and strength to help lift guys up after years of oppression. if that was the case, i can see a boys-only screening to be a cute and appropriate idea - like i do now, with a girls-only screening. there's nothing wrong with allowing people not like you to be lifted and celebrated.
i see your point. maybe an argument can be made that being forced to include the previously 'oppressive' gender in on a girls-only night is counterproductive to the original concept. it should be noted that if the intent of those offended by this is really to celebrate the freedom and pride of women and their offense comes by the denial of that, there are COUNTLESS other avenues in life to celebrate women. but i have a feeling those offended by this just like being obstinate.
+Flávio Soares Was there a need for one? Has there ever in the history of mankind been a demand for that? No, if it was I can guarantee you we would have had so god damn many men only openings it would hurt your brain.
In regards to the Alamo story, I _do_ have an issue with their policy about staff working that screening. It seems to me that restricting the people who could work on a certain night to one sex, in direct violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To quote from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, "The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, *pay*, *job assignments*, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment." I mean, I've lived in Austin my whole life, and I've gone to Alamo Drafthouses countless times -- I know the people behind the franchise are chill folks. I don't think they mean to discriminate on the basis of sex here. I think they were just trying to make a show of how dedicated they are to the idea behind this event. Nevertheless, if a man -- or someone who identifies as a man -- wants to make sure he could pay rent by working overtime that night, and this showing was the only one where more staff would be warranted, it would break a federal law to refuse his request and say, "You're not allowed that assignment because of your gender."
Crossark1 Lots of businesses will schedule a single gender staff for certain events, in catering especially it's quite common. I really don't see the problem, not every employee works every job, it's not like they aren't getting equal amounts of work.
The only thing I would say to your comment about workers is this: you aren't promised overtime. Now if a man had to give up his scheduled day to a woman for this event then I would say it's up to Alamo to make sure they aren't screwed over. This event will probably be tip heavy so I would make sure that the people I moved got some extra weekend work or a little 5-10% bonus or something. Also like Christina Welsh said, when it comes to events I've seen catering go with single genders at times. Like a Women's seminar may have all females or some sports banquets have all male staff. It's a thing that happens but again, they will only be in trouble if their work scheduling isn't flexible and they make a man lose what may be a profitable day for them.
It still just feels unnecessary to me. You can easily have a ladies night without excluding ALL male staff members. No one is looking at the projectionist while watching a movie. At a catering event you interact with wait staff a lot more than at a movie theater which makes sense, but what about cooks etc? During these catering events did they also have all male or all female cooks or did that not matter since they aren't seen? Somehow I feel they wouldn't waste their time worrying about the cooks gender because it is excessive and stupid kind of like its stupid to make stipulations on what gender the projectionist is.
I dont think it was wrong for the new york times to publish that info/images they were simple using information that was handed to them, I think most papers would have published them. The bit I do condemn is the fact that it was leaked in the first place whilst there is still a highly sensitive investigation going on.
Andrew, I agree to a certain extent. But the leaks could of easily have been bribes by news organisations. Obviously I don't know but I wouldn't necessarily take that possibility out.
If information is passed on covertly, those details should be kept under lock and key - the UK government may have deemed some of the evidence to be crucial to keep secret, therefore requiring a higher security on it
The name of the bomber being leaked early could have seriously damaged the Manchester police's attempts to find accomplices. They weren't going to release his name until they knew whether he was acting alone or part of a larger group like with the 77 attacks. The shambolic American intelligence agency and the New York Times who care more about clicks and less about bringing justice to 22 of my fellow countrymen could now be responsible for attacks later down the line now that his accomplices know that they are in the cross hairs. There's no way that the attacker could have made a bomb that elaborate so in my eyes its only a matter of time until we get hit badly again. Its the ethical code for journalists to "Minimize Harm" and understand what kind of impact news can have. Besides, it was infromation that should never have come to their knowledge in the first place.
With regards to the terrorist's name being released it was far too soon. The British police and MI5 wanted to keep it under wraps for at least 36 hours so they could locate and deal with people/places that could also be involved without tipping off any accomplices. Also it makes that despicable person well known, which it what they want as it furthers their narrative. Here in the UK we held a minute's silence today to remember the victims, and the furthest thing from our mind was the name of the terrorist who cut these lives short.
the women's only screening doesn't bother me, but I would like to know if they would do men only for a different movie?.. probably not, so that makes it shitty
Greg Gianforte is an alumni of my college Stevens Institute of Technology. He is donating millions to build a new building in his name on campus but records showed he has donated money to gay converison camps. His reputation isnt good to start with so this comes as no surprise
If Gianforte wanted to use his physical strength to get things done he should've been a bouncer, because in the job he's gunning for he will need his brain not his fists.
The solution to this controversy is for the theater to have a screening of Apocalypse Now that is only open to those who identify as an Attack Helicopter.
About the female only Wonder Woman screening: I don't like it. I understand the argument that this event is simulating in a microscopic way the kind of sexism women experience all the time while also being a "ladies luncheon" thing. That being said, I don't think exclusion should be perpetuated anywhere. I am 100% for the equality of the sexes, and this doesn't seem like something that bolsters that ideal.
I don't know a single instance, in a modern Western country, where women have been excluded from going to the cinema due to their gender/sex. So if they're trying to highlight women's issues they sure aren't doing a good job.
It really isn't hurting anyone. This is a gimmick, it lasts one day, in select locations and is raising money for charity. I don't see any negative intent here. WW has been a strong female role model for generations. So the new movie, they do a fun gimmick where, like the Amazon island of Themyscira, only Women are allowed. Both in the seats and behind the scenes. I don't see how it does harm.
As an enemy of the militant feminazi movement, in other words a straight white male, I really don't see what the big deal is about having a women's night screening of a movie. It's not that different than getting a "chick flick" and calling your female friends and staying home to watch it. There seems to be a serious sense of insecurity in society that everything anyone does is an affront to the opposite side. In example, Women get a night out, Men get upset and cry sexism, Men get a night out, same thing.
Metric Imperialist Not strictly true. Race requires a compelling reason, but gender is not protected by strict scrutiny. Gender, thus far, has not been included in the US Constitution and is left up to the state.
its not even discriminating lmfao holy shit... it's one night people. i am done with this society... this is 2017 people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edit: I know the definition of discrimination, but it's not that black and white. Perception is created and twisted so quickly.
Erik Olson It may not be strictly enforced, but it would definitely be worth while filing a lawsuit against the theater, as there's a strong case to made. People have been sued for less.
I can see how the name of the bomber being released is problematic as it gives others who are associated with the attack and that individual (I'm referring to people who planned it) a warning that they are being investigated.
Re Alamo Draft House 'thing': I don't care, they're a private business and can do whatever they want. People being disingenuous is way more infuriating. You know if they had a men's only screening of Spiderman, it'd be front page news and they'd be called sexists. I just want people to stop being hypocrites.
OrangeCrush Gaming who is saying that? You are more likely to try to interpret the opposite from his comment, he's saying both should be able and not have special things for one
im fucking tired of this youtube ceo, and the forcing of open minded youtubes to start changing there content or face revenue loss... a big thank you to phil for not changing to suit there bs algorithm....
michael cooper I agree, also keep in mind that the "defunding" is exactly the same thing "mainstream" shows face when "advertisers" pull funding...this is not a new tactic, but seems to me that it has become one sided if you know what I mean...
Philly D: If the goal was to make money for women's charities why not just have that be the goal? The "women's night only" does nothing to benefit that cause because if the theater holds 100 seats, whether the butts in those seats are male of female doesn't matter if all 100 are filled. The backlash over the women's night ultimately hurts the cause because now people are pissed. If they had just come out from the beginning with the charity cause and cut out the segregation they probably would have made far more money.
This so much. If money was being raised for charity why not just say that and let anyone come in. I am just imagining if at a fundraiser someone is like "We are raising money for insert women's charity, but we are only taking money from women. Sorry sir I cannot take your $1,000 donation because you are not a woman". It's like the theater has no hope that men give a damn about charities that revolve around women so just decided to not let them in during charity night.
Hermaeus Mora Hey dumbass it's called Women's night. Let them have their fun. If you're bitching because they're doing it also as a fundraiser then just fucking donate your money and quit bitching
If it was a single showing for a Batman or Superman movie for "men only", people would be throwing much more of a fit. Double standards. You can't demand equality for all and then support the idea of excluding a large group of people.
I also don't care about the women's-only screening, but is anyone actually surprised by the backlash? This is normal in our society now, where every little thing is problematic somehow. Some people decided to virtue signal by bitching about every little thing, and other people pick up the behaviour. What did you expect?
I agree with OP, and I personally I wouldn't mind if there WAS a guy's only night. It's literally a night. At one movie theatre. There are plenty others theatres, plenty of other showings, and plenty of other days. Not to mention cinema is stupidly overpriced. I'd rather redbox it 3 months later.
End Drug Prohibition You're confusing me for someone else, I think. I, personally, am not in favour of this, but at the same time it's such a minimal problem it's ridiculous. Comparing this to Saudi Arabia? Or to the situation decades ago? Guy, you must realize how ridiculous your overreaction is.
Hunter66 I would not bitch. I really don't care. I only comment because I'm surprised anyone *does* care. I have to ask, do you always make assumptions like that? I make one comment and you think you know my opinion on anything else? I will remind you now that you don't have to be this intellectually lazy. You can do better! I believe in you.
Caitlin Eisner exactly, there's backlash for anything nowadays in modern society. this is literally a 1 night thing. What's the big deal. People are just blowing it out of proportion..^^^
Probably because competence and strength are already a male stereotype and its kinda pointless to celebrate it when it's shown. Because it's shown all the time. That is not to say that there is an issue with it (or with a men-only movie night), but it really isn't anything special.
It would be totally fine for a mens charity to have a mens fundraiser screening. I think the womens night will be super popular though because its probably the only time we ever get to see a female super hero movie.
Is it even worth to discuss? Of course it's effed up and irresponsible of the NY Times to post this as early as they did. If anything, it jeopardizes the investigation that's being conducted, and the process to apprehend those who are involved in the bombing.
I guess my only problem with the Wonder Woman thing and the "woman only no men allowed"; is the double standard. Any argument for someone having the right to shit on another is invalid to me. Like the idea that you cannot be racist to white people. The idea here is that you cannot be sexist to a man, because of the sins of his fathers. He is a man, he must be bad, screw him. Well, the men I know now are not sexist. Maybe I'm in my own world here? most the men I know are not sexist or racist. The more read about the things coming from the SJW the more I realize they want to punish ppl for the sins of the 1950s.
Having a ladies night isn't saying that men are bad though. They are simply celebrating the fact that they finally have a female superhero movie. The fact that there have been so many but no female ones has been a big frustration among women for years. This is not about shitting on men; that's just misguided interpretation.
Nicely put. And yes, this is the new Feminist Frontier. Pushing the idea that it IS ok to shit on men, totally ignoring the fact that shitting on anyone is wrong.
If gianforte wins the election and then is still convicted of assault does he still keep the winning vote or does it go to the runner up? or do they do a revote?
I don't understand why a movie theater would say hey let's cut our profits in half and then donate said profits to local female charities instead of hey let's make as much as possible to help contribute to these charities.
It's likely a similar reason as to why Tim Allen had his show cancelled despite being one of the most popular shows on that TV network and Defranco gets half of his videos demonetized. Profits be damned when it comes to the agenda!
How are they only making half? It's a special showing, most likely going to be sold out. It is a single theatre, guys can go to any other. We're you going to go to this theatre? No? Get over it.
The point is that they are now on headline news and are probably going to be more infamous and renowned because of this decision. Psychological Marketing 101.
Always important to question and not always agree with sources, and yes that includes Phil. Sure it's only select cinemas; hey why don't we have a no black people cinema too? just in select cinemas tho, we're not savages. lmao, Sarcasmo, out.
Ric, you've never been to an Alamo Draft House have you, nor have you been close enough to their inner workings to realize: Men going to an event are more likely to get more expensive food, buy more/expensive beer, and more girlfriends are going to go with their boyfriends to see it. Fact is you're cutting WAY more than half the revenue by turning away men.
On the Alamo Drafthouse Topic: I've worked for The Alamo for the last two years, so my point may be bias. I would understand the male backlash more if the Ritz wasn't playing Wonderwoman in multiple theaters and for multiple weeks. However, one screening set aside for female power and donating funds to charities should not be this big of an issue. If the male patrons of the Alamo Drafthouse want a male only movie screening, a good way to get that started is to contact the local Alamo Drafthouse General or District Manager and suggest it. Boom. Equality. Instead of bitching and moaning out into the social media void about how unfair life is. It's a movie. There are more important things to be upset about.
Amber Johnson Even if it is for only one screening it still doesn't change the fact this is segregation. If this were a male only screening for Superman the whole universe would implode. Whether it is female, male, white, black, asian, hispanic it is still segregation because it is a *public* screening which is *ILLEGAL*. If this was a private screening that invited only women then thats different but this is a public screening.
The problem with the Alamo thing is that its one of those things where it all has to be okay or none of it can be okay. Normally I wouldn't care that much but those tweets are right and the knowledge that this would be a labeled as disgusting if the genders were reversed irks me. What they should have done was had an event about empowering women but allow anyone to come, that way it could be for women but men could still come show their support and have a fun time at the movies and no one would feel disenfranchised. Honestly almost no one would care/be upset if they had done that instead.
JACKx0FxSPADES I agree that it would have been a bit more effective but it honestly doesn't bother me that much. If you switched the roles, it would be upsetting because it would no longer be an formely or currently oppressed group celebrating their progress in society but it would be some oppressors celebrating their oppression of someone. One is just celebration where the other is a powerplay.
JACKx0FxSPADES Also, I would totally be okay with the genders being reversed as long as the event made sense. If it was a mens only event just to be a mens only event, it would make no sense.
JACKx0FxSPADES Celebrating equality by dividing doesn't seem right. I'm no where near the anger as the guys that tweeted are actually I don't care one bit. However they are right. No matter how small or limited unite don't divide.
If people ask for you to hold some information back for a time period, it should be respected. Everyone will eventually know what happened but if some things need to remain unknown to the public for a short time in order to control a larger issue than why would you push to know that information immediately
condew HacDC I was referring to the bombing in that comment, also I don't feel it's okay for specific people to be excluded in this sort of case(a non private event)
Hi, long time watcher, first time commenter. When advertisers pull out of sponsoring something, and then they are identified and their logos shown by good people such as yourself.. they just got free advertising. Is this not adding fuel to the dumpster fire?
But the reason they were having an only woman screening is because the movie was Wonder Woman. So it does have to do with the movie. For what it was, this backlash was pretty big. Everyone complaining about it and saying they are going to boycott the Alamo just because for one night they wanted to do something special. Pretty ridiculous.
pssssssstttt. hi
Hello
Philip DeFranco HI
Philip DeFranco Hello sir
Greetings~
heyo
I think politicians and reporters wrestling one another would make a great reality TV show.
Tim McClure I'd watch that
hmmmmm it could work considering Trump is already in the WWE hall of fame............
I'd recommend you check out the music video for Nobody Speak by DJ Shadow and RTJ
I want to see trump and Biden arm wrestle
Since this happened in Manchester, UK should be the ones who decides what information should be released, and when it should be released. Something like this should not be a typical competition between news papers where the goal is to provide the information first. If the UK don't want certain information to be released, there is a reason for it, and other countries should respect that.
Ain'tNoAngel I believe if it's the information between the Area and such yes. But if it's intel that could have connections with other people should be not released but given to the USA since USA is the leading force against the war of terror. (Before you ask I'm American)
then why is it so hard ot understand what you're saying?
the reason is that the legal systems in the UK and the US work differently, now that the information about the bomb is public knowlege, it could risk the conviction of people involved in the bombing in a UK court of law
Last night on the Stephen Colbert's late show, he was interviewing Robin Wright (who's in the movie), and he said that "this is a badass superhero that little girls can look up too." *crowd applause.* And after the crowd stops clapping, she says, "and for little boys too."
Superheroes are made to inspire *everyone,* whether you are a boy or girl.
Ender Skies Wonder Woman was made for feminism when it was needed, she was a strong independent woman, fighting, against evil and kicking some ass to empower women.
That's funny because Wonder Woman was always, from conception a sexually objectified character and it's amusing to me how she's now a symbol of feminism.
Mundy Lunes IDK all the male superheroes wear tights.
WW is still for boys to look up to though.
Mundy Lunes Most comic book writers and readers in the time when Wonder Woman was created were male. Over the years this has changed and so has the character. But even still, she was from day one represented as a strong, independent Woman who came from a place where only female warriors lived. Sure, she was drawn with her tits showing, but that doesn't mean she was objectified, it means women have tits.
The women only screening sounds like the perfect night to crack open a cold one with the boys
I has a friend that was murdered and the killer got to walk free because the local paper publish crime scene photos so his "confession " throw out because the details were public.
Gianforte probably mistook the reporter as a challenger who was trying to take his world champion heavy weight belt
Braxx that has to be a meme.
As someone who lives in Austin Texas, this is Alamo Drafthouse. This is their thing. They take themed events literally so far. They are currently setting up a Pirates of the Caribbean movie where you MUST dress like a pirate or get kicked out. It makes sense for Wonder Woman, a movie where a female that originates in a land of NO MEN, have a woman only screening because it's kinda funny. Honestly they're probably the best movie theater in existence with the strictest policies ever and it makes watching movies so much better.
That sounds awesome. I wish we had something like that here in CO.
Michael Asper Will they do a no women showing of superman? If not they are sexist
To be fair, he did answer the question. He did show the reporter what Republican health care would be like.
this straight up made me laugh out loud
To be fair anything is better than obamacare haha
@Phil Smith, you made my day with this comment, lmao
I lol'd and I'm right leaning
I am a conservative, and I gotta say......... FUCKING. SAVAGE.
Person: What news channel do u watch. CNN, Fox, NBC?
Me: DeFranco
Person: What!?
Me: You heard me.
edit: This was just a joke btw for any1 fighting with another.
Is this something that actually happens, or do you just don't have anyone to talk to and you just simulate conversation in your head?
shane salva All of them are trash
LikeGdz Lmfaooooo 😂
Probably a bad idea tbh
You'll miss most of the real news if you only watch Defranco, there's only so much he can talk about every day and there's so much going on in the world
shane salva Preach! 👏🏻👏🏻
Seeing Phil's face every time he uploads before I go to sleep is how I'm getting through my GCSE's. That and crying into my revision books.
Romy R I just don't revise. See you in college
Romy R good luck 😊
Romy R Revision books? huh? what's that? GOOGLE, ENLIGHTEN ME
*weeps silently, and whispers* I guess this is another opportunity to disappoint my parents
Romy R English lit tomorrow? Best of luck
It's funny to know people make a problem out of selected women's only showings while Belgium's Kinepolis theaters have a monthly Ladies at the Movies event and nobody's bothered by it :)
That's a horrible argument. You cannot justify discrimination or atrocities just because it is the norm elsewhere. We could apply this same logic to women oppressed in the middle east
Either way, it's the principal, no one cares about the showing
I've had that LOVE poster hanging in my room for over 5 years after buying it from you Phil! It's my all time fav one!
that recreation. top quality
Like I was in the room with them!
I remember a few years back, some guy opened a barbar shop exclusively for men. It specialized in shavings and after care as well as short lenght haircuts. The shop was basically designed to be a little man-cave. And it was men-only, girlfriends and wives not allowed other than sitting in a waiting area.
A week or so later, the owner had gotten so much hate, the government officials had gotten so many emails, that the shop was forced to close down.
I dont mind ladies nights at the bar or womens only screenings, as long as you are consistent in the belief that exclusion can be okay in certain situations. But as that one comment said, i cant help but wonder the absolute shitstorm that would take place if a screening for a movie was men only.
Its hypocrisy and its disgusting in all its forms.
In my town we have a men's den which is exactly as you described.
DeaminZaints I know there used to be women's nights at the theaters around me growing up, not sure if there still are, but I always thought that was a pretty normal thing. Honestly I see 'girls night' stuff all the time, I'm surprised not to see more men only clubs or bar nights. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Sport clips is still in my area and still advertise as Men's only... You were saying?
Hollow Moon
But are they advertising haircuts for men (which is a different product to haircuts for women) or are their salons "Men only"? if a woman enters, will she politely be asked to leave? Im gonna go with no...
A product advertised for men, is not the same as a store exclusively for men, or a theater exclusively for women.
So i was saying its hypocrisy, and im standing by that.
That commenter saying "imagine if there were men only" are you kidding me? there are entire multi million dollar businesses purely around "mens" clubs which were a crazy magnet for abusing and terrorizing women as well, the difference of women and men spaces is that men make men only spaces for fun, women make women only spaces for saftey... :/
Phil, I was just wondering if you could talk about the ISIS attacks that happened in the Philippines this week (as in immediately after the Manchester attack). No one else has even mentioned the attack, aside from 'Now This' on Snapchat
***correction: it has been featured on other websites, but from what I've seen it hasn't been on any news *shows*
Thanks Clare, I still have not heard about it.
Thanks Clare
UPDATE: just now June 6, 2017 the local army seized a cache of money and checks amounting to 79 million Php ($1.5m usd approximately) in one of the Maute group's machine gun posts. From whom or where the money came from has yet to be revealed and at initial glance seems to be funding for their activities.
My opinion on the leaks to do with the the Manchester bombing is that the UK police shared that information with the understanding it would be secure. I also feel that releasing the name of the perpetrator was too early and could hinder catching all of those responsible by letting them know who you suspect and the evidence you have. When it comes down to it it is a betrayal of trust on the part of the US. I wouldn't be upset if it was a political topic but this was a terrorist attack with people dead and that is serious enough threat that I can't condone the leaks even though I often support leaking information.
As for the Wonder Woman thing, the movie is interesting enough although I'm not a DC fan. What annoys me about it is the double standard and the fact that if it were reversed people would be up in arms. Doesn't affect me so I don't care that much but I find hypocrisy annoying.
I feel literally the exact same way on everything you shared.
^What he said
Xenos Tyrant I agree about the information being leaked. Sometimes information is withheld for a reason. It isn't done to hurt the public but to protect them from future attacks or copycats. Releasing it early can hinder law enforcement agencies greatly.
As far as the movie goes, my husband agrees with you completely and I won't go without him so it doesn't really affect me either.
I agree that the printing of that information was irresponsible during an active investigation. The free press should not be releasing investigation evidence hours or days after a terrorist attack.
With the leaks of the evidence, I think the real reason that people over here are pissed off is that it is criminal evidence. There will be court cases and charges made to the people involved if any evidence has been leaked to the press that evidence is now unusable in a court of law. This means that the people involved have a lower chance of going to jail.
I want most information to come out eventually, just after the investigation. We don't want any possible suspects to know that they might be investigated. What the public sees as just a little debris that does matter to them, a suspect could see as a part of the bomb that could tie them to the attack, telling them they should run. News readers didn't really gain anything by seeing these photos, but the suspects may have. I'm all for holding the information until the case is pretty much closed
Precisely, every scrap of info released just informs the culprit how best to avoid capture. More worryingly, having already proven their proficiency with explosives, if they now feel cornered what's to stop them attempting to take out even more innocents with them? I'd much rather they think they've got away scot-free right up until the moment the police kick down their door.
*Most* accurate recreation ever 😃 I felt like I was really there
The leaked photos of the evidence definitely should not have been published. While it is in no was disrespectful, this could have potentially informed accomplices of the bomber what the police know and could have helped them get rid of the evidence. I believe that anything that could help should be kept, for the most part, a secret.
EDIT: Grammar.
Horrid57 it's an ongoing investigation. Definitely not helping by disclosing how much the investigation had come. Apparently nothing was learned from the last time news prematurely disclosed info and put people's lives at risk.
+
It was definitely wrong. I mean, people were still missing and getting confirmed dead
Just don't tell Trump anything, he'll blurt it out over dinner
I agree, with something like this people should know the basic details; what happened, where it happened, what the impact is/how many injured or dead, if there might be more attacks closely following it, and what you can do to help and stay safe. Beyond the basic details, I think everything should be withheld until a later date when the authorities can do a full press release, where everything is shared openly.
I can't believe RUclips is doing this to you. How can we as viewers tell them it's unfair? Petition? Survey? What?
Vanessa Blanco spam emails ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Vanessa Blanco U have to join DeFranco elite
Joining the elite is a solution but not really a good one IMO. This is more an issue that needs better attention from RUclips. There shouldn't be a need to say "Remember to like, comment and subscribe (plus go to this other website that isn't RUclips and support me there) because RUclips isn't giving you a way to support my content otherwise." in every video just to survive. It seems silly they wouldn't want a direct cut instead of this tracking likes, subscriptions and such. Plus there would be no advertisement backlash for the content.
Not unfair. Just business. Phil talks about controversial topics, and most advertisers do not want to be associated with it. Nothing you do is going to change anything.
Join DeFranco elite to show your support: defrancoelite.com/
Ghostbusters reboot complained that sexism stopped men wanting to watch female leads, now there are people that actually plan on turning men away from a movie because of a female lead.
Life must be pretty good when your biggest worry is who is allowed in to a single showing of a movie.
Mark Andrews This is America, we've long ago run out of meaningful problems to be upset about
That's a great way to trivialize the issue. Let's put it in another context. Life for blacks must be pretty good when your biggest worry is being excluded from a whites only theater.
Old Longfellooww Lol Now you know thats not the same. And if you honestly believe it is. I 'm sorry that your mind works that way
Bracetty Bracetty ur stupid...it is that way...thats how it starts...its like now every protagonist has to include some women power bs...n it is the same thing..its discrimination...how is a man being present going to destroy the movie watching experience...i hope the 1 man that goes to tge showing is uninvited and accompanied with an assault rifle
Bracetty, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you blind? It's literally the exact same thing.
As a woman who lives in the Austin area and has gone to the drafthouse many times, I am a little angry but mostly confused about this showing. If its supposed to represent the exclusion that women often feel, I do not agree with that. I am not saying women are not excluded from things for reasons other than the fact that they are women (as I have experienced that myself), but I am saying that this does not help bring equality for women. All it does is make some people angry and it does not help the argument for equality. The part about this story that makes me the most angry is that if they are donating proceeds to help women why are they excluding paying customers? I also cannot imagine the group of people who came up with this idea, who goes "you know what? let's exclude men from this! That will show them how serious we are about supporting women's equality!!!" Especially since the drafthouse has made an effort to be all inclusive this move just doesn't make sense socially or economically. I guess I just don't understand and I am the one being close minded here.
right, why can't comments like this be at the top of the page
WhereYouAda
I agree, it doesn't make sense that they'd exclude a demographic who's money could also go to the same charity.
and I could be wrong, but I have a feeling more men would be interested in seeing a new comic movie than most women.
but I guess the charity can just miss out on those extra funds :/
Yeah, what about single mothers who would like to take their kids? Or guys who want to go with their gf/bf os just men who enjoy DC's movies (which is the majority of DC audience)? They're being ridiculous
The only difference between Alamo's Women only Screening of Wonderwoman and a bridal shower party is that in the latter a man or group of men entertainers are the highlights, while on the former is a woman in hot costume. 😆 😅 😂
Creative North hahaha so so true!
LOL!!!
Because of that, I can say that bridal showers are the first form of sexist movements, abusing male entertainers in exchange for a small amount of money and huge sexual satisfaction hahaha
so these feminists are doing it their way now :D
Not a feminist but I don't mind seeing a woman in a hot costume 😏😏
Being in Manchester, I find it incredibly irresponsible for the leaks to have happened. We've seen several police raids happen over the past few days in the city based off of intelligence gathered at the scene. This intelligence is then shared openly with the US under the 'fiveeyes' which is supposed to remain confidential. So seeing leaks come from an international intelligence partner could put the on going investigations at risk or worse still, the suspects could receive prior knowledge of police raids and surveillance through news outlets and escape or leave traps
For it to happen once was wrong, but for it to happen again and coming hours after UK politicians went on the news condemning the leaks is unforgivable. If this should happen again I believe all intelligence sharing with the US should be halted until the source can be identified and steps are taken to prevent further leaks
This is completely unacceptable!
it's a suicide bombing, the 'suspect' is DEAD... and what's wrong with telling the whole world about the suspect's name? it's not like the suspect's accomplices hadn't already on their getaway after their friend did the bombing... it's much better to spread it around that the suspect of such crimes could be easily identified so that future criminals will be deterred from following their path...
Fionn Burrows Hasn't the UK been paying attention to our shitshow of a president? Why they gave that info to the US in the 1st place is beyond me. I hope that, in the future, the UK will kept their Intel close until they deem it wise to share
The issue is they want to prevent it from happening in the future. Better to catch the people that are doing in it.
I like how the president is the one to blame for all this and not the people who took oath of secrecy to keep their mouth shut. Its also a secret UK and her allies needs to know because they may be planning on different attacks in different areas around the world, example being boston marathon. State of US as a country is alright, and in fact in terms of anti-terrorist movement as a whole have improved. Keep their intel closed........ i love when people think that withholding information helps anyone. I am sure its the leftist whistle blower that wants to keep on leaking information so that leader of a country looks bad, and that person seems to have strong ties with NY Times because a lot of "anonymous" leaks starts there, and only way to prevent this is to make President trump look even worse, which is to investigate and persecute NY times.
If you can't handle a tuff question, why the hell are you running for office of any kind?
And just the fact that they feel the need to mention that he's liberal is an obvious tactic. This has nothing to do with politics, it's an assault.
Hey Philip, I just wanted to say I'm a little sick, and you brighten up my day every day! No matter what the topic is on, you are funny, and make everything better!
Get well soon!
The reason people are annoyed at the leaks is that the us shared the names and photo before the uk did. Before the families knew.
See in the uk we have a system. The victims and their families know info before the rest of us. Yes we are all kept in the dark until this occurs but we know the people who need it the most are given the care they need and the police are able to focus on their investigation without being hounded. The rest of us get the information once it's been cleared for release.
Security risks aside you shared information about someone who had murdered others before the families had been told.
The us would have been told these as the uk were gathering info. To ensure the us were not also under threat.
And just in case you STILL Dont get it?
A woman was on the news Monday begging for info for her daughter. she was one of the mothers whose daughter had been killed and she released that info Tuesday.
Monday the us shared info
Monday' before this woman knew her daughter was dead the us were telling folks "people had been murdered by this guy see what killed them"
Would the uk have released it? I don't know but we never got the chance to know as apparently the uk police were on a timer to release information
The press fucked up and needs to take responsibility. Yes you were disrespectful. Apologise for being scum.
I'm sure it was an anti-Trump federal employee trying to screw over his presidency
Ben it more likely that US leaked the intelligence as the US already have a problem with leaks.
The NYT article quotes the source as US officials
People should just respect the innocent who have died, this includes sharing the info before it's supposed to be public. The family should get to know before the rest of the world. People in the US don't need to apologize, they had no control over the media they consume, it's more of an issue with journalist and police/investigators in the UK not honoring this rather than American politicians or news.
The issue is the press in the US has a problem with confirming the stories and trying to be the first to post on it. They don't care if they are right or on who it hurts. They've gotten innocent people arrested and killed in the past. They wouldn't care. Unless enough people call them on it. Then they just delete the article or tweet. Trying to act like it never happened. CNN for example.
That one dude saying he was going to campaign against the theater needs to take a chill pill
The only way my ass would ever campaign against a movie theater is if they decided to up the price of popcorn from it's low low price of 20 dollars to 30 dollars
Longtime fan. To support you I will be sharing every episode that you put out to support you and your venture of fan sponsored content
le gasp 😂 8:00
CornNick102 _cru hahahha I knew I wasn't the only one that thought that was hilarious
The women's only screening of Wonder woman isn't that bad by itself, but if there was a men's only screening of Thor or something, the backlash would be immense.
Seth
It's almost like there's inequality of the sexes and one has more representation and power in the media than the other. Weird.
The women's only screening of Wonder Woman isn't bad whatsoever. All but about 3 superheroes in movies are men, and no superhero movie as of late has starred a woman until now- yet men feel butthurt because they can't go to this ONE screening of this ONE movie? Can't women have anything?
Maybe because (here's a newsflash) not that many women give a shit about comics? It's been a male driven industry since its inception and a lot of fans (Who are male) would love to see that movie. It's not helping your "cause" if you fight fire with fire.
Group 3 nope. 1st world problems.
i question how much representation = power
Tuffluck 1337 and yet there was quite a large amount of women and girls going to see Wonder Woman....
Discrimination that occurred in the past does not justify using discrimination today. How is anything supposed to progress if there is always a constant back and forth of "They did it to us; we get to do it to them".
"We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." ~Martin Luther King Jr.
Skiddlz11 another quote from Dr King that fits your comment:
"An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."
Skiddlz11 only idiots are using past discrimination of women as an excuse to not let men see a movie on a certain night. The smart people don't give a shit either way as it does not affect them. I suggest you get riled up over something that matters and not a movie screening
+BrianRuel I think that was Gandhi
So you snarkily insult the people having an issue with the exclusion yet you apparently give enough of a crap about this to comment and shame others for caring about this matter. By your own admittance you must not be smart or you wouldn't care about the people that cared about this and thus wouldn't waste time here like we all are doing.
+Submissive Sona It's a pretty small mind that concerns itself only with itself.
That "sup" was EXTRA high pitched lmao 😂
Can we get a "LE GAAAASP!!!" outtake roll please?!
As much as I dislike fox news, credit where it's due. I'm glad they'd stand behind a fellow reporter despite the fact they're not technically on the "same side". It's kind of sad that having simple integrity is noteworthy nowadays but all the same, I'm glad they showed they had it.
The only mainstream news outlet that has 50-50 positive/negative coverage of trump. The rest of them are 70%-90% negative, a statistic from Harvard.
+Kitta Here is the statistics shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ I was surprised myself when I actually viewed it, they put out balanced and fair coverage after all.
While the news crew corroborated the story, their tone changed the next morning on Fox and Friends. They aren't giving any attention to their own story.
Having an equal amount of "positive" and "negative" stories doesn't necessarily mean it was balanced coverage. There are different degrees by which you can measure positivity and negativity. I've seen some of their "negative" coverage, saying they were wearing kid gloves would be putting it mildly a lot of the time.
"Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic."
So unless you have a better example of a mainstream news network who cover both the negative and positive equally if* not as close to half, Fox News would probably remain the definition of the fairest and balanced news network.
I think they are more concerned about the fact a leak happened at all, not with what was shown.
am I the only one that died at how serious Philip DeFranco was before and after the wrestling clip? Obviously, he isn't watching the clip while he is recording but damn I was not expecting that haha
As long as we continue to let this "oh this race/sex/etc only" shit go on, racism/sexism/etcism is going to thrive.
US and UK investigations work very differently - It seems as though in the US any potential evidence, whether it's confirmed or not, is published. UK officials are very careful about putting information out before they know they can confirm it. That's why they didn't put the bombers name out there, because they couldn't confirm he was the attacker at the time US press leaked his name. And with the leaking of crime scene evidence - That information is meant to be shared so that country officials can show one another something they notice about the evidence that perhaps no one else has seen (such as how a detonator works etc), it is shared in order to keep multiple countries safe and not just the country that was attacked. That's why it shouldn't have been leaked (plus due to any distress it may cause the victims to lean information from a source that they aren't working with)
I am still a little fuzzy on who leaked. They seem to be implying that the US government leaked. Yet is was the Brits that stated that they are looking into who leaked the information.
it was somewhere along the line or so i heard, UK police informed relevant authorities in the US and somewhere from there someone leaked to US Press.. but your right its fuzzy, thats why they're looking into it - but from what i know (although i am british, so bias news quite likely) is that it was a leak in the US
rufusprime99 British authorities shared intel with the US (they do this all the time as the OP stated) who then shared it with the media when they shouldn't have.
We also share that information with others in confidence that it won't be leaked or shared before confirmation. If a country goes against that, then they have lost our trust and confidence.
In the US, it's also meant to not be published. But a lot of journalists don't care, and if something gets leaked by a dirty or careless cop, it's most likely going to get published even if it could ruin the investigation.
At the end of the day, it's just a movie screening, and it isn't going to ruin anyone's life.
But people do have a valid point when they say that the outrage would be much greater if it were the other way around. Just like how this screening isn't going to ruin anyone's life, an all-male movie screening wouldn't ruin anyone's life either.
I don't understand the argument that this is "giving men a little bit of a taste of what women go through." How exactly? When are women ever told that they're not allowed to go into a certain movie theater? What "women's issue" is this equivalent to? The only thing that I can think of is that if a movie appeals more to men, then women may not be inclined to go and see it. But that's a case of women choosing not to do something. Any woman who wants to see the new Transformers, or Batman V Superman, or any other movie still can. And I doubt very many men were going to see Sex and the City.
Even if there was an actual problem of women not being allowed into certain movie theaters, I've always thought that the "let's do it the other way around too" way of doing things was extremely childish and unproductive. I wouldn't want to force more men to become kindergarten teachers or force more women to become engineers to even out the earnings gap. I wouldn't want to make more women commit suicide so the suicide rates are equal. I wouldn't want to stop opposite-sex couples from getting married just because there are same-sex couples who can't get married. If you agree that something is unjust, why would you ever want to make it happen to more people rather than less?
I also find it funny that the same people who will deride any distinction based on gender (things like boy's and girl's kids meals at McDonalds, or a female cartoon character being drawn with eyelashes, or a shirt that says "Boys Will be Boys", or even an expecting couple wanting to know the sex of their child) will be the same people who turn around and do things like this, where they draw needless lines based on gender so that they can "celebrate women." The theater goes out of its way to say that it will allow "anyone who _identifies_ as a woman" into the screening, so it seems like they are acknowledging that whether you were born with an innie or an outie doesn't make a difference in who you can be and what you can do, so why make an event like this specific to women then?
And what about a "celebration of women" requires the audience to be all women? Why would it not be preferable to have everybody celebrating women? Isn't that kind of the end goal? Are there really any women who wouldn't have been able to appreciate seeing this movie knowing that somewhere in the same building as them a man is appreciating it too?
As I said be fore, at the end of the day, it's nothing major, but it's definitely kind of silly, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense no matter what way you cut it.
Though I suppose the fact that the proceeds are going to charity, however, does make this a little better. At least some good is coming out of it.
Idiotocin 👏👏👏 super well worded
Thank you. I try.
Idiotocin Wow...very nicely done on your response. I do agree with you as well.
Again, not really sure I would agree with you. I don't think there would be equal outrage for a "kids only" viewing of a movie like "Rugrats". These are just events for promotion's sake, and if you're offended by them, maybe try having a tougher skin.
I don't hear any outrage over "women only" gyms... Nope... just professionally offended people crying loud about something that is minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
Loved this Livvie! And it's so sweet that you're going to try to hand them out at BookCon :)
I think the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema is doing right by donating proceeds of their special screening to women's shelters. However, I think they should have done so by allowing all people to attend that night. That way the focus would have been more on the act of charity rather than excluding a specific gender.
I can only imagine how much bigger the backlash would be if they did a men's only screening with proceeds going to a men's rights organization.(I would say men's shelters but every time one opens feminists protest it til its shut down).
From what I've read some place tried to do that with Logan but it got shut down for being sexist.. So yeah.
You can't selectively change genders in only parts of the story. People would be celebrating men if in the context of the situation it was previously 100% women and now a man was able to excel. Because the opposite is happening here. Wonder woman first came out in a comic in 1941 and has been a huge figure representing female empowerment ever since. I think by simply switching the word male for female you're being dismissive and ignorant about the history/role wonder woman has played in the lives of many women. Just my 2 cents though I don't mean to offend.
Fire, yeah if this was in the 40s, or hell even in the 80s, it would be empowering etc, now its like.. Pandering or something? But yeah I guess there are still issues today, and like 2 decent female super heroes for role models, although this move feels a bit like 'only female heroes can be role models for female humans', which feels like its implying male role models cant be role models for females, which seems a bit backwards.. Anyway, Alamo do all kinds of weird shit, and its all in good fun, just looking at the other weird shit they have done, I don't think they are trying to really push a social agenda, just make viral events for free publicity.
Yeah I see where you're coming from there. I do think it's kind of insane it took wonder woman over 60 years to get her own film. But maybe they are just pandering/making a viral event on purpose just to get publicity.
Who ever edited that WWE body slam needs to get a pay rise
The most disheartening part of the Gianforte incident is that nobody knows if that will actually hurt him in the race. Hell there are probably people who will vote for him BECAUSE of the incident.
benwhitnell I would. I have no doubt jacob was "bird dogging" him.
benwhitnell and any early voters (if any) that that no longer wishes for him to be their representative can't change their vote.
there's a woman on cnn who cheered the incident and voted for that fuckin Russian/turkish thug
benwhitnell I will vote for him now
A Closer Look you act like Gianforte is the only candidate to have been "bird dog" by the press. If you can't handle the press, I doubt you'd have the temperament to serve and listen to your constituents.
A friend of mine was at the concert in Manchester, they noticed a lady with a very large being progressively shifty, they mentioned it to the security and they said 'yeah we'll keep an eye on it." Later she continued to appear more and more suspicious so they mentioned it to the security at the arena again and they said "maybe you're looking shifty, just shut up and enjoy the concert." They didn't investigate once, literally awful security there.
Hi, this will probably get lost but I'm actually a bartender at the Alamo Ritz (I also work elsewhere because the Ritz has limited hours, but it's a fun job). It was funny to see this story pop up, because as soon as we heard that we were doing the women's showing, our managers made a comment about how it would be a shitshow once people got sensitive about it. In fact, our company HQ is right down the street from the Ritz and we got the announcement from our founder, Tim League, personally when he got back from Cannes. For what it's worth, I know Tim and he's a super reasonable dude who just wanted to have a fun women's empowerment event; this was never supposed to be political. Staff will be instructed to check every ticket as the guests enter the theater, so any guys obviously trolling will be asked and encouraged to leave, though I have no idea how they plan on navigating the I-identify-as issue if it pops up.
As far as people boycotting Alamo because of this, Tim doesn't care. Alamo is HUGELY popular in Austin and is well-known for not taking bullshit (feel free to look up the time we banned Madonna for texting during a movie), and more importantly, the company is so profitable right now it's ridiculous. They literally can't open up new locations fast enough to keep up with demand. I guarantee you that none of the higher-ups are worried about taking a hit on the financial front, and Tim has always been the kind of guy to put what he feels is morally important above profits anyway.
One interesting aspect about this was the women-only servers, projectionists, etc. Like I mentioned, the Ritz has limited hours -- we don't show movies all day like most theaters, usually we start at 5 PM and have a lot of special events, so a lot of our staff are part-time, students, work at other locations, or have other jobs, and those who don't are always looking for extra hours because Alamo pays REALLY well for the industry. There were more than a few pissed off male employees about this, including our lead server who is gay and generally the type to be labeled an "SJW" or "feminist", who take some issue with being shut out of a shift that is going to most likely be really good money. Additionally, the Ritz is located on Sixth Street, which you are welcome to Google -- hint: it's known as Dirty Sixth for a reason. I'm willing to bet that a ton of drunk dudebros will make an event of the showing and I'll have to get involved with stopping at least one fight.
Anyway, since I'm a bartender and not in the theater I'll be working the show, and I'm happy to report back with how it goes if anyone is interested.
Brian W Yes, please report back! Actually, you should go put this post in the r/DeFranco sub on Reddit and update there!
I'm not expressing an opinion about the showing's policy either way. I think it's a complex issue that people on each side are attempting to oversimplify. Obviously I know that Alamo and Mr. League feel one way about it, but that does not extend to all Alamo employees, and as I said, my own perspective on it lies somewhere in the middle.
Regardless, I love working for Alamo and I'll be at work that day. I'll probably clear $400 that night if I'm lucky.
A word of advice: Treat customers like they are valuable even when your services are in high demand. Thing may get tougher in the future and the same people you don't care about now may be the ones your begging to use your services later
Beware :: PR Propaganda !!!! They're in damage control mode now !!!!
shaun Brown It's not my company, and far from my decision. That said, the overwhelming majority of their local customers support the women's show -- you have to remember we're in Austin, one of the most liberal cities in the entire country. The people frustrated by this move are in the local minority and it's not close, and both shows sold out almost immediately. I can't speak for the rest of the locations across the country, but at least in Austin, they've received much more praise than criticism for this move.
Again, I'm not expressing my personal opinion on this either way, just stating what I know to be true.
Phil was discussing major security leaks and the break between allied countries trust. The whole comment section is just bitching about a couple of movie screenings that probably don't affect you one way or the other.
PureNightfall not to mention a House candidate assaulted a member of the press 😳
Men get so easily threatened by things that exist that don't cater to them but a national security leak? Nah
THIS. jfc. just go to a different goddamn theater chain. like yeah, i dislike sjw culture completely, and sure, it seems kind of dumb to do this, but i mean... there are other theaters in town, and alamo is a private company that can do whatever they want. Can we talk about shit that actually matters, like international security and politicians trying to silence the press?
PureNightfall p
Derr taking our theaaters!!! Wut's next??! When will teh contravarsy end!?!?!
I seriously want to see a movie where there's just a male screening and see what happens now.
WhyYouTrappinSoHard A Magic Mike only male screening
As the theater tweeted, they've never actually had a men's only viewing of a movie, but they did once show 'Entourage'.
WhyYouTrappinSoHard I mean its a comic book character.. men being the majority fans of the this franchise. (not saying on prepose just the way it is) so isn't it already a sausage fest anyway? Personally, I think its a really stupid business move to alienate their many customers witn the shameless virtue signalling and use of identity politics.
I think him body slamming the reporter is absolutely hilarious.... lol
They literally had a wine night at my local theatre for women to watch 50 Shades of Grey. I couldn't give less of a fuck, if they did the same thing with a mens night for sports I wouldn't care either way.
tehDmez the correct term would be I couldn't give less of a fuck, when you say you could, it means you could give less of a fuck
the thing is, on those night the men working there probably were still working there that time. This time male employees missout on work and money earned which is the problem
Don't you think zerovin, that they would've just switched shifts with the ladies? No loss of pay and they can do it again for a men only showing. Simple. 😁
And, who knows? They might have even given the men time off WITH pay.
@Maximum Borkdrive I was very tired when i wrote this, didn't expect it to get this much attention lmfao
I want to preface this by saying that I don't really care about the Women' movie night. Although, I feel like Phil glossed over the fact that the outrage is about double standards. Could you imagine the outrage if a movie theatre had a dudes and draft night?
Welcome to the western world. My gym does a similar sort of thing.
Yeah, I was pretty surprised by Phil's lack of interest in that topic. I was expecting him to point out how glaringly obvious it is they're not helping any cause for equality and clearly just pandering to the more militant offshoot of feminism that's become so popular lately. That said, I guess he wanted focus on the question he asked and what none of the top comments seem to be about- the newspaper leak of the terrorist attack investigation.
Why would a movie have a dudes night? this double standard you claim are completely seperate varaibles. The why is important. Why does this movie in particular have a woman screening. This is Justice League doing this. Its wonder woman.
I tend to agree I don't see the issue with having a ladies night its not like its everyday, but i also agree if they tried to have a dudes only showing the amount of shit generated by that shit storm would be enough to clog everyone plumbing for weeks.
Maybe you should open up a mens only gym and soak up that beautiful PR
As for the Wonder woman showing....
I think what the business should have done is asked this simple question... if we held this event and entered any other segment of society. Men, Black, Asian, Tran-sexual, gay, White... would this still be OK? If the answer is no to any of them. Then the answer is No to all of them.
That is how equality works.
casey anderson
There are queer events all the time so... generally, people don't ask if your straight but if you went around telling everyone you were straight you'd probably be asked to leave.
If you truly believe this you're what's wrong with society these days. Plain and simple what their doing is just a fun few showings for just women, because it's a woman superhero and they wanna celebrate that because unlike anything else you brought up a woman superhero solo movie doesn't come up very often and why not let just women have a night or two to embrace that together without the PC universe making this into something it's not.
Can you cry harder? We still have a drought in California. Guys who cry about this kind of shit, and pretend they need more "equality" are so insanely pathetic. But they're easy to spot.. they all have the same 1990s, shit-stain goatee rofl!
Joe Diaz I'm sure most of those guys are just sick of the feminazis and are giving them a taste of their own medicine.
I had to go (I mean I didn't mind going, but it was an assignment) to a LGBT film festival for a class and nobody was excluded at all, this is just silly
when they screened "Man of steel" did they do the same?
Flávio Soares no the movie was ass
superman wasn't created as a symbol of male pride and strength to help lift guys up after years of oppression. if that was the case, i can see a boys-only screening to be a cute and appropriate idea - like i do now, with a girls-only screening. there's nothing wrong with allowing people not like you to be lifted and celebrated.
Nebraskan Bull Worm then why can't men celebrate it too by going to the screening
i see your point. maybe an argument can be made that being forced to include the previously 'oppressive' gender in on a girls-only night is counterproductive to the original concept. it should be noted that if the intent of those offended by this is really to celebrate the freedom and pride of women and their offense comes by the denial of that, there are COUNTLESS other avenues in life to celebrate women. but i have a feeling those offended by this just like being obstinate.
+Flávio Soares Was there a need for one? Has there ever in the history of mankind been a demand for that? No, if it was I can guarantee you we would have had so god damn many men only openings it would hurt your brain.
In regards to the Alamo story, I _do_ have an issue with their policy about staff working that screening. It seems to me that restricting the people who could work on a certain night to one sex, in direct violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To quote from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, "The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, *pay*, *job assignments*, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."
I mean, I've lived in Austin my whole life, and I've gone to Alamo Drafthouses countless times -- I know the people behind the franchise are chill folks. I don't think they mean to discriminate on the basis of sex here. I think they were just trying to make a show of how dedicated they are to the idea behind this event. Nevertheless, if a man -- or someone who identifies as a man -- wants to make sure he could pay rent by working overtime that night, and this showing was the only one where more staff would be warranted, it would break a federal law to refuse his request and say, "You're not allowed that assignment because of your gender."
Crossark1 Lots of businesses will schedule a single gender staff for certain events, in catering especially it's quite common. I really don't see the problem, not every employee works every job, it's not like they aren't getting equal amounts of work.
The only thing I would say to your comment about workers is this: you aren't promised overtime. Now if a man had to give up his scheduled day to a woman for this event then I would say it's up to Alamo to make sure they aren't screwed over. This event will probably be tip heavy so I would make sure that the people I moved got some extra weekend work or a little 5-10% bonus or something. Also like Christina Welsh said, when it comes to events I've seen catering go with single genders at times. Like a Women's seminar may have all females or some sports banquets have all male staff. It's a thing that happens but again, they will only be in trouble if their work scheduling isn't flexible and they make a man lose what may be a profitable day for them.
Crossark1 No, not men. That law isn't for us, it's about equality or diversity, depending on which you respond to more positively.
It still just feels unnecessary to me. You can easily have a ladies night without excluding ALL male staff members. No one is looking at the projectionist while watching a movie. At a catering event you interact with wait staff a lot more than at a movie theater which makes sense, but what about cooks etc? During these catering events did they also have all male or all female cooks or did that not matter since they aren't seen? Somehow I feel they wouldn't waste their time worrying about the cooks gender because it is excessive and stupid kind of like its stupid to make stipulations on what gender the projectionist is.
I dont think it was wrong for the new york times to publish that info/images they were simple using information that was handed to them, I think most papers would have published them. The bit I do condemn is the fact that it was leaked in the first place whilst there is still a highly sensitive investigation going on.
Andrew Heatley Exactly. 100% my opinion as well.
Andrew, I agree to a certain extent. But the leaks could of easily have been bribes by news organisations. Obviously I don't know but I wouldn't necessarily take that possibility out.
If information is passed on covertly, those details should be kept under lock and key - the UK government may have deemed some of the evidence to be crucial to keep secret, therefore requiring a higher security on it
The name of the bomber being leaked early could have seriously damaged the Manchester police's attempts to find accomplices. They weren't going to release his name until they knew whether he was acting alone or part of a larger group like with the 77 attacks. The shambolic American intelligence agency and the New York Times who care more about clicks and less about bringing justice to 22 of my fellow countrymen could now be responsible for attacks later down the line now that his accomplices know that they are in the cross hairs. There's no way that the attacker could have made a bomb that elaborate so in my eyes its only a matter of time until we get hit badly again. Its the ethical code for journalists to "Minimize Harm" and understand what kind of impact news can have. Besides, it was infromation that should never have come to their knowledge in the first place.
Andrew Heatley Doesn't the media hold some responsibility though for publishing it so early instead of just holding it for a while?
With regards to the terrorist's name being released it was far too soon. The British police and MI5 wanted to keep it under wraps for at least 36 hours so they could locate and deal with people/places that could also be involved without tipping off any accomplices. Also it makes that despicable person well known, which it what they want as it furthers their narrative. Here in the UK we held a minute's silence today to remember the victims, and the furthest thing from our mind was the name of the terrorist who cut these lives short.
Hi there ---:) Long TIME watcher -- First Time Typist. Thanks
the women's only screening doesn't bother me, but I would like to know if they would do men only for a different movie?.. probably not, so that makes it shitty
Even then, this is the whole "Black people train, White people train" issue if we start dividing groups of people
Richerino Kripperino yeah but a business can do what it wants. It's still shitty and drives people away
Finally someone gets it...thank you. Personally I don't care it's just the hypocrisy.
The way he said "Wagner Brakes!" killed me.
Greg Gianforte is an alumni of my college Stevens Institute of Technology. He is donating millions to build a new building in his name on campus but records showed he has donated money to gay converison camps. His reputation isnt good to start with so this comes as no surprise
Phil, a flower holder... do you mean a vase? lol
"againist"
If Gianforte wanted to use his physical strength to get things done he should've been a bouncer, because in the job he's gunning for he will need his brain not his fists.
Sean Darling although considering he's running for office in Montana, this will probably help him in the polls
Kendall Flake It totally did. I'm not really surprised, but I am disappointed
I'm not disappointed. I think it was a little bit awesome lol
The solution to this controversy is for the theater to have a screening of Apocalypse Now that is only open to those who identify as an Attack Helicopter.
omg, THAT'S ME!! Finally I'm getting represented!
We need nationwide attack helicopter only screenings.
We Need Attack Helicopter's nights at bars.
We demand to be referred to by our pronoun, chopper, and the possessive pronoun, thwopthwopthwopthwopthwop.
Caligula Rex we the oppressed people of Kekistan support this cause and the noble people of helicopterland.
Caligula Rex I can not like this comment enough omg 😂
Amazing video! Keep it up!
About the female only Wonder Woman screening: I don't like it. I understand the argument that this event is simulating in a microscopic way the kind of sexism women experience all the time while also being a "ladies luncheon" thing. That being said, I don't think exclusion should be perpetuated anywhere. I am 100% for the equality of the sexes, and this doesn't seem like something that bolsters that ideal.
I don't know a single instance, in a modern Western country, where women have been excluded from going to the cinema due to their gender/sex. So if they're trying to highlight women's issues they sure aren't doing a good job.
It really isn't hurting anyone. This is a gimmick, it lasts one day, in select locations and is raising money for charity.
I don't see any negative intent here. WW has been a strong female role model for generations. So the new movie, they do a fun gimmick where, like the Amazon island of Themyscira, only Women are allowed. Both in the seats and behind the scenes.
I don't see how it does harm.
Stephanie Pappas I WONDER if they have the audacity to not allow a father and his daughter....hmmm
Stargazeer Nova Oh, I agree. It definitely doesn't do harm. This is a totally benign event that I just don't really agree with.
As an enemy of the militant feminazi movement, in other words a straight white male, I really don't see what the big deal is about having a women's night screening of a movie. It's not that different than getting a "chick flick" and calling your female
friends and staying home to watch it. There seems to be a serious sense of insecurity in society that everything anyone does is an affront to the opposite side. In example, Women get a night out, Men get upset and cry sexism, Men get a night out, same thing.
If a business is open to the public, it cannot discriminate based on gender, race or sexual orientation.
Metric Imperialist Not strictly true. Race requires a compelling reason, but gender is not protected by strict scrutiny. Gender, thus far, has not been included in the US Constitution and is left up to the state.
its not even discriminating lmfao holy shit... it's one night people.
i am done with this society...
this is 2017 people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: I know the definition of discrimination, but it's not that black and white. Perception is created and twisted so quickly.
Erik Olson It may not be strictly enforced, but it would definitely be worth while filing a lawsuit against the theater, as there's a strong case to made. People have been sued for less.
APristineBanana um yeah it is. it's the exclusion of people based on sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
APristineBanana "women-only" makes it exclusionary. Look up the definition.
Began punching the reporter!!!! YES YES YES!!!! I love this dude!!!
People are freaking out? I Wonder why.
Thank you Barbara
I can see how the name of the bomber being released is problematic as it gives others who are associated with the attack and that individual (I'm referring to people who planned it) a warning that they are being investigated.
Just saw a preroll ad about the Wonder Woman doll 😂😂
Assert your dominance by body slamming your constituents!
Re Alamo Draft House 'thing':
I don't care, they're a private business and can do whatever they want. People being disingenuous is way more infuriating. You know if they had a men's only screening of Spiderman, it'd be front page news and they'd be called sexists.
I just want people to stop being hypocrites.
Joseph Parastatidis So you're ok with cake makers to say no to gay wedding?
Joseph Parastatidis Exactly. It's funny to see people upset over either event.
You've summed up my feelings on the subject perfectly.
Joseph Parastatidis
But if you're a private business and can't bake a cake for someone because your religion that's wrong...
OrangeCrush Gaming who is saying that? You are more likely to try to interpret the opposite from his comment, he's saying both should be able and not have special things for one
im fucking tired of this youtube ceo, and the forcing of open minded youtubes to start changing there content or face revenue loss... a big thank you to phil for not changing to suit there bs algorithm....
michael cooper I agree, also keep in mind that the "defunding" is exactly the same thing "mainstream" shows face when "advertisers" pull funding...this is not a new tactic, but seems to me that it has become one sided if you know what I mean...
That 'animation' was unbelievable!!! 😂😂😂
while I don't think the Alamo is doing anything wrong, if they were in Canada, this event would actually be illegal.
Philly D: If the goal was to make money for women's charities why not just have that be the goal? The "women's night only" does nothing to benefit that cause because if the theater holds 100 seats, whether the butts in those seats are male of female doesn't matter if all 100 are filled. The backlash over the women's night ultimately hurts the cause because now people are pissed. If they had just come out from the beginning with the charity cause and cut out the segregation they probably would have made far more money.
This so much. If money was being raised for charity why not just say that and let anyone come in. I am just imagining if at a fundraiser someone is like "We are raising money for insert women's charity, but we are only taking money from women. Sorry sir I cannot take your $1,000 donation because you are not a woman". It's like the theater has no hope that men give a damn about charities that revolve around women so just decided to not let them in during charity night.
Hermaeus Mora Preach it
Hermaeus Mora - agreed. Since when do women's charities not accept money from men? It's a BS excuse to rationalize hypocrisy.
Hermaeus Mora Hey dumbass it's called Women's night. Let them have their fun. If you're bitching because they're doing it also as a fundraiser then just fucking donate your money and quit bitching
Segregation? Are you even fucking serious?
If it was a single showing for a Batman or Superman movie for "men only", people would be throwing much more of a fit. Double standards. You can't demand equality for all and then support the idea of excluding a large group of people.
I also don't care about the women's-only screening, but is anyone actually surprised by the backlash? This is normal in our society now, where every little thing is problematic somehow. Some people decided to virtue signal by bitching about every little thing, and other people pick up the behaviour. What did you expect?
Like you wouldn't bitch if they had a men-only night. Get real
I agree with OP, and I personally I wouldn't mind if there WAS a guy's only night. It's literally a night. At one movie theatre. There are plenty others theatres, plenty of other showings, and plenty of other days.
Not to mention cinema is stupidly overpriced. I'd rather redbox it 3 months later.
End Drug Prohibition You're confusing me for someone else, I think. I, personally, am not in favour of this, but at the same time it's such a minimal problem it's ridiculous. Comparing this to Saudi Arabia? Or to the situation decades ago? Guy, you must realize how ridiculous your overreaction is.
Hunter66 I would not bitch. I really don't care. I only comment because I'm surprised anyone *does* care.
I have to ask, do you always make assumptions like that? I make one comment and you think you know my opinion on anything else? I will remind you now that you don't have to be this intellectually lazy. You can do better! I believe in you.
Caitlin Eisner exactly, there's backlash for anything nowadays in modern society. this is literally a 1 night thing. What's the big deal. People are just blowing it out of proportion..^^^
With the Alamo screening thing, why isn't there a men's only screening for something, like Thor?
Probably because competence and strength are already a male stereotype and its kinda pointless to celebrate it when it's shown. Because it's shown all the time. That is not to say that there is an issue with it (or with a men-only movie night), but it really isn't anything special.
Have you tried requesting one yet?
It would be totally fine for a mens charity to have a mens fundraiser screening. I think the womens night will be super popular though because its probably the only time we ever get to see a female super hero movie.
Is it even worth to discuss? Of course it's effed up and irresponsible of the NY Times to post this as early as they did. If anything, it jeopardizes the investigation that's being conducted, and the process to apprehend those who are involved in the bombing.
I guess my only problem with the Wonder Woman thing and the "woman only no men allowed"; is the double standard. Any argument for someone having the right to shit on another is invalid to me. Like the idea that you cannot be racist to white people. The idea here is that you cannot be sexist to a man, because of the sins of his fathers. He is a man, he must be bad, screw him. Well, the men I know now are not sexist. Maybe I'm in my own world here? most the men I know are not sexist or racist. The more read about the things coming from the SJW the more I realize they want to punish ppl for the sins of the 1950s.
Tell it like it is! I totally feel you.
Having a ladies night isn't saying that men are bad though. They are simply celebrating the fact that they finally have a female superhero movie. The fact that there have been so many but no female ones has been a big frustration among women for years. This is not about shitting on men; that's just misguided interpretation.
so what do you mean "only" problem?? The double standard is the problem and it is huge
RobDeLaMort Kaz?! is that you?
Nicely put. And yes, this is the new Feminist Frontier. Pushing the idea that it IS ok to shit on men, totally ignoring the fact that shitting on anyone is wrong.
This entire debacle is so obvious, this house of cards involves some very powerful people and crimes that would horrify the world. Keep pushing Phil
What I learned from the comment section is that people do care about the movie screening. Oh boy.
If gianforte wins the election and then is still convicted of assault does he still keep the winning vote or does it go to the runner up? or do they do a revote?
It doesn't matter who wins, both main people running are useless.
The governor usually appoints a replacement, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently*.
*For the duration of the term, that is.
NocturnalOwl Someone finally has the balls to take the fight to the media LOL. God I wish I could vote for this guy.
3:11 god damn it i thought he was serious lol
Hi phil, what are those splashes on your shirt?
I don't understand why a movie theater would say hey let's cut our profits in half and then donate said profits to local female charities instead of hey let's make as much as possible to help contribute to these charities.
It's likely a similar reason as to why Tim Allen had his show cancelled despite being one of the most popular shows on that TV network and Defranco gets half of his videos demonetized.
Profits be damned when it comes to the agenda!
How are they only making half? It's a special showing, most likely going to be sold out. It is a single theatre, guys can go to any other. We're you going to go to this theatre? No? Get over it.
The point is that they are now on headline news and are probably going to be more infamous and renowned because of this decision. Psychological Marketing 101.
Always important to question and not always agree with sources, and yes that includes Phil. Sure it's only select cinemas; hey why don't we have a no black people cinema too? just in select cinemas tho, we're not savages. lmao, Sarcasmo, out.
Ric, you've never been to an Alamo Draft House have you, nor have you been close enough to their inner workings to realize: Men going to an event are more likely to get more expensive food, buy more/expensive beer, and more girlfriends are going to go with their boyfriends to see it.
Fact is you're cutting WAY more than half the revenue by turning away men.
leaks should not happen, when its time to share the info it is chosen to be shared
Surprised that Phil didn't point out that the Alamo was just a publicity thing, as usual: all publicity is good publicity after all
On the Alamo Drafthouse Topic:
I've worked for The Alamo for the last two years, so my point may be bias.
I would understand the male backlash more if the Ritz wasn't playing Wonderwoman in multiple theaters and for multiple weeks.
However, one screening set aside for female power and donating funds to charities should not be this big of an issue.
If the male patrons of the Alamo Drafthouse want a male only movie screening, a good way to get that started is to contact the local Alamo Drafthouse General or District Manager and suggest it.
Boom. Equality. Instead of bitching and moaning out into the social media void about how unfair life is. It's a movie. There are more important things to be upset about.
Aaannnd fuck you.
Sexist as hell and you know it darling please do kindly fuck off.
Mike Mac your response was very well thought out and constructive. Thanks for contributing to this conversation!
Amber Johnson Even if it is for only one screening it still doesn't change the fact this is segregation. If this were a male only screening for Superman the whole universe would implode. Whether it is female, male, white, black, asian, hispanic it is still segregation because it is a *public* screening which is *ILLEGAL*. If this was a private screening that invited only women then thats different but this is a public screening.
Amber Johnson tell that to the droves of women who still blame men for all their problems. "patriarchy".
The problem with the Alamo thing is that its one of those things where it all has to be okay or none of it can be okay. Normally I wouldn't care that much but those tweets are right and the knowledge that this would be a labeled as disgusting if the genders were reversed irks me. What they should have done was had an event about empowering women but allow anyone to come, that way it could be for women but men could still come show their support and have a fun time at the movies and no one would feel disenfranchised. Honestly almost no one would care/be upset if they had done that instead.
JACKx0FxSPADES I agree that it would have been a bit more effective but it honestly doesn't bother me that much. If you switched the roles, it would be upsetting because it would no longer be an formely or currently oppressed group celebrating their progress in society but it would be some oppressors celebrating their oppression of someone. One is just celebration where the other is a powerplay.
The Alamo theater has done all women and all men nights before. So, they're not in the wrong here. All of it is okay for them.
JACKx0FxSPADES I can attest to this.
JACKx0FxSPADES Also, I would totally be okay with the genders being reversed as long as the event made sense. If it was a mens only event just to be a mens only event, it would make no sense.
JACKx0FxSPADES Celebrating equality by dividing doesn't seem right. I'm no where near the anger as the guys that tweeted are actually I don't care one bit. However they are right. No matter how small or limited unite don't divide.
I body slam everyone who disagrees with me so I don't see the big deal
If people ask for you to hold some information back for a time period, it should be respected. Everyone will eventually know what happened but if some things need to remain unknown to the public for a short time in order to control a larger issue than why would you push to know that information immediately
That's called collusion and conspiracy. It's dishonest. So you think it's OK to have a movie showing that excludes men if you do it in secret?
condew HacDC I was referring to the bombing in that comment, also I don't feel it's okay for specific people to be excluded in this sort of case(a non private event)
Hi, long time watcher, first time commenter. When advertisers pull out of sponsoring something, and then they are identified and their logos shown by good people such as yourself.. they just got free advertising. Is this not adding fuel to the dumpster fire?
How the hell was that a "Massive Wonder Woman Backlash"???
1. It wasn't that big of a backlash.
and
2. It had nothing to do with the movie.
Welcome to clickbait.
But the reason they were having an only woman screening is because the movie was Wonder Woman. So it does have to do with the movie.
For what it was, this backlash was pretty big. Everyone complaining about it and saying they are going to boycott the Alamo just because for one night they wanted to do something special. Pretty ridiculous.