Man Killed At 50 Cent Flick

Friday - November 11, 2005 by Dark Kent

Though it has only been in theaters three days, 50 Cent's new movie Get Rich or Die Tryin' has been pulled from a theater where a man was fatally shot.

Shelton Flowers, 30, had just watched the film Wednesday (November 9) when he got into a confrontation with three men in the bathroom. A fight ensued and spilled out into the concessions area, where Flowers was shot, police said.

Authorities are looking for witnesses, and no suspects were immediately arrested.

While officials do not know whether the film was a factor in the slaying, the Loews Corp. decided to stop showing 50's big screen debut from that theater while authorities conduct their investigation, Loews vice president of marketing John McCauley told The Associated Press.

"We're unclear whether there is a direct connection," McCauley added.

He said the company is doing all it can to make sure patrons are safe at the 22-screen multiplex in a popular entertainment-and-shopping complex just east of Pittsburgh.

At press time, there is no word as to whether Loews will be pulling the film from its other 130 theaters across the United States

__________________
"You smell that? Do you smell that?... Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end..."

That sounds like horse****. Why would the movie be the reason for anybody killing someone else? That stinks.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I live near (and routinely go to) the theater where this took place. And despite what this incident might imply, it's actually a very large, nice, elaborate theater.

Yes, it's a lovely theater, actually (I've been there a nice handful of times myself). The whole area has been revitalized. But honestly, these guys were seeing this movie and then got into a huge scuffle in the men's room, ended up in the lobby where the shooting took place.

At the very least, the movie attracted viewers with a certain mindset regarding violence. I just don't see the 40-something soccer moms seeing this movie and then heading home in the minivan to make Gorton's fish sticks and steak fries.

I think it was prudent of the theater to pull the movie for the time being. No one (so far) has said the yanking of the film is permanent -- but at least while the investigation is going on. I can't say I blame them. No amount of revenue is worth the kind of negative publicity this brought to the Waterfront. If they were still playing that movie, you can bet I'd think twice about going there, even to see something else.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

Isn't there a possibilty that they would have run into each other after having seen, for instance, Sin City? Would they have cancelled that one? Fight Club? I don't think it's the fact that the movie is violent that's the reason here (I haven't seen it, is it violent?). I can't understand how the mindset regarding violence is any different among the viewers of this film than the mindset among viewers of many other films.

A lot of films attract viewers with a certain mindset regarding many things. I'm sure violent people sometimes watch romantic comedies but continue to be violent afterwards. And a lot of people with violent minds must have watched this film and lots of other violent films without touching so much as a hair on anybody directly after the film. So the film can't really be the problem, imo.

And I don't think 50 Cent sees this as bad publicity. It just adds to his image of a real true thug. The more dangerous he and everything connected to him seems to be - the more lucrative for him. He feeds on the myth, just like the media who feed it to the public.

From what I've heard, there were theater owners concerned before this movie came out that it might be a place where gang members or other "thugs" (to use your word) might congregate. It's highly unlikely that this particular group of "thugs" would have met to go see "Cheaper By the Dozen" or "Under the Tuscan Sun" and then have an altercation in the men's room.

I think it was a 50 Cent concert that had similar violence a year or so ago ... which was partly why some theater owners expressed concern over the movie, I'm sure. And, if the movie is pulled from other theaters, and it tanks, at what point does 50 Cent determine that the negative publicity has had a bad financial outcome for him? I doubt that'll happen, of course, and yes, everyone knows that even bad publicity is good publicity. I find that truly sad in any context in which it's true.

For whatever reason, I think it was right for the theater owners to pull the movie temporarily. And I'm betting they'd have done it with any movie in which there might have been a connection or association between the movie and the violence *at* the movie. Because, the theater owners do not have the same lucrative outcome from this violence that 50 Cent might have. They have actual finances at stake here. Good for 50 Cent, bad for Loew's Waterfront.

I agree that it wouldn't be fair to simply assume that the movie is what sparked the violence, but it's not unreasonable to suspect it as the source. As Austruck (AKA mom) pointed out, they probably weren't there to see Chicken Little.

This is not to say that only violent people will see Get Rich or Die Tryin', or that all those who see it are violent. But I think it's safe to assume that the film's audience will be disproportionately prone to confrontation, not only on account of the film's content, but also because they figure to be, by and large, young males.

However, you're right that the film isn't "the problem." The people involved had the capability to do what they did before they saw the film. The question, I think, is not whether the movie is creating confrontation, but whether or not it's attracting people already prone to it. I think you can make a solid case that it does, and even if this is the only time it manifests itself in a tangible way, I can't fault the theater for playing it safe.

I hate to think that they are pulling the moive for financial reasons. Surely, and right or wrong, it should be because of the safety for the audience. If they calculated with a larger risk than usual, perhaps they should have put some money into increasing the security.

I just don't see the connection that you say is there. If the guy had been shot outside MacDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken, what would that say about those fast food restaurants, using your reasoning? You're basically saying that it's right that movies that attract one certain type of people among many types of people should not be shown. Or at least not to the people that the movie is about. And not among people that the film is not about. Isn't that to stigmatize and marginalize a group of people awfully?

Sure, I understand that this film attracts mainly young males. But still, how can you find any kind of connection saying that the film per se triggered the shooting? Do we even know if the ones who pulled the trigger went to see this film?? As far as I can see, all we know is that the victim did.

In Sweden we had a case a couple of years ago where a film about one football team (soccer) attracted not only the fans of the team but supporters of another rivaling team to the showings of the film. Big fights broke out during the showings which was almost similar to football games in that sense. The film wasn't pulled but greater resources were put in to check those who went to see it. In this "50 Cent case" the shooting didn't take place during the showing of the film or even inside the theater but it started in the men's room. If we didn't know what film the victim just had seen, or if the shooting had taken place a hundred meters away from the complex, we probably hadn't related it to the film at all.

I doubt that the police will find any real connections between the film and the actual shooting.

And no, I don't think they would have done it with any film "connected" to a killing. Who would honestly believe that a killing after a Scorsese film was a mafia showdown? Or that it was a reason for pulling the film?

I am not making any broad generalizations here, so please don't assume I am. But you have to admit that it is POSSIBLE that these men were at this movie primed for a fight, seeing this movie because it has a cavalier attitude toward violence. It is POSSIBLE that, if these men were watching The Lion King, perhaps this fight might not have happened.

Certainly there are people in the world who *can be* influenced by the things they see on the screen ... in a bad way. Certainly this is possible, right? If it happened in this case, then all I'm saying is that it happened in this case. I don't have to be espousing the view that everyone who sees this movie will go out and shoot someone just to say that IN THIS CASE there *was* a connection, do I? I don't think I do.

And, like it or not, I don't see how long-term finances aren't on the minds of the higher-ups of the Loew's corporation. Once you get too high up on the food chain, the financial bottom line is all you see. You hear of a story like this and your mind is trained to think (among thoughts of safety for patrons), "Oh no, this is going to be bad for business." It's a bad thought, yes, but surely someone in the chain of command has thought it.

Anyway, just because you can cite examples that seem ridiculous doesn't mean that it's not true in this one instance.

Either there was some sort of inciting to violence (overt or subtle) or there wasn't. If there was, there was. No further connections inside or outside this particular film need to be made.

Didn't mean to get all philosophical about this. But as I've said, 50 Cent live concerts have had similar problems in recent times. So, this didn't surprise me when I heard it, to be perfectly honest.

P.S. Thanks, Yoda. You said it better than I did. What he said.

I'm not sure I said anywhere that the film per se triggered the shooting, did I? If so, I didn't mean to make a *direct* connection of "Watch movie, go shoot someone." I didn't mean to imply that otherwise innocent people walked into this movie and became epistemologically convinced they had to go out and shoot someone.

I think Yoda said better than I did what I was trying to say. Forgive whatever inability I have to communicate this idea. I'm writing a novel in a month and my brain has been entirely fried for over a week now.

Wait, I never said anything about Chicken Little. I think it's abundantly obvious that Chicken Little will spark similar riots and bloodshed.

As did Rolling Stones concerts (even if not in recent times - as long as you're not counting Schwarzenegger in the audience as some kind of abuse).

No, I know that. You are saying that the film is bringing bad elements together in the same spot. I agree, but I think it's a coincident that the killing happened to occur nearby a theater that had just showned Get Rich or Die Tryin'. And that's why I mean that the film has nothing to do with it.

He he... I don't think you have any communication problems really. But I do see a slight difference between what Yoda says and what you say. But if you're saying that you're with him on this, I'll back off. I actually tried to rep his post but it wouldn't let me. I wonder why - it must have been a couple of years since I repped Chris the last time.

Rep Chris? We can rep Chris?

Actually, I was pretty sure the local news had said that all those involved were at the movie itself, not just hanging around the movie-plex in general or seeing some other movie.

But, yes, as I read Yoda's post, I kept thinking, "YES, that's precisely how I should have stated it!" So, yes, I definitely am saying what he said. He's perhaps a bit more cautious about the connection.

Well, I suppose I should try to give him rep points, but maybe you can't give him rep because he's totally maxed out on Infinity Rep Points or something.

I don't think anyone gets primed for a fight unless they have reason to fight.

I know people of what you would call Of that Ilk and they certainly don't attend movies looking for a fight. It can be Sin City or Finding Nemo, they go there the same as always.

As far as a cavalier attitude towards violence: Have you seen the movie? Do you know the movie's resolution? Would there be a more cavalier attitude toward violence than in Sin City or Caligula?

The most reasonable explanation I can think of is that news papers need things to help sell or de mote something. 50 or 50's enemies probably had a hand in this development. And I don't mean personally, I mean generally from the standpoint of news.

I'm sure the black folk who saw this movie didn't go there looking to get pissed off unless it was intentionally planned.

__________________

I cant wait till 50 cent goes away and takes all his crap with him.

Dudes a joke. His movie is a joke. His music is a joke.

Boycott crap, I say.

Last night on our local news there was a story about more violence surrounding this movie in another city (Providence, R.I., I believe). I did a quick Google search and found over ten Google *pages* of articles about cities pulling advertising and billboards and posters for this movie due to concerns about inciting violence. It was a nationwide concern, apparently. There were also numerous other articles about other times when 50 Cent concerts and publicity were in some fashion connected to fan violence.

Whether or not the people in Pittsburgh played into that fear when they shot is not my point. Whether or not most people can see this movie and not shoot someone is also not my point.

My point was simply that there could easily have been a connection of some sort. I'm not anti-rap or anti-anything-else for saying so. I'm merely making a *statisical* connection that apparently is not far-fetched. And, I am not alone in thinking this. I am not saying 50 Cent is responsible for this shooting, either. I was merely making a point that it could easily have been no coincidence that it was this movie (and not the others showing at the theater -- who said anything about Caligula or Sin City, both of which weren't playing there on Friday?) that surrounded the shooting.

Please don't read anything beyond that into things.

FWIW, I remember a huge stink when Caligula came out too. There are certainly films that glorify violence in some way. I'm not saying they should be banned. But they can certainly be personally boycotted, and they will be. By me, at least.

'Nuf said. It seems hard to take my words at face value, for some reason.

I'm swedish and don't know what that mean but I still feel that "not at all" is a suitable phrase here. No?

I understand what you're saying and you are not wrong having this opinion.

Again, I haven't seen the film yet but since Jim Sheridan is the director I really don't expect it to be a film that glorifies violence. I might be wrong though.

Anyway, the reason to why I have a problem with the film being pulled is because of the larger picture. There is a myth of the dangerous black man which is nurtured by media and society's fear of this myth. And 50 Cent is of course making money off this myth as well - which is a pity since it only contributes to further and wider segregation and misconceptions about different groups of people. The way I see it, pulling this film is only contributing to making this fear greater and the myth more real. Instead of isolating violent people from non-violent people this kind of action rather stereotypes people further. There simply must be places more attractive to violence and dangerous people than this movie theater. But I really don't think it's the violent itself that is the problem but the fact that the violence is entering an arena where it isn't supposed to be according to the norms of society.

I hope you're not saying that the theater owners should have kept playing the movie after someone was murdered in their lobby. I think pulling the movie from their lineup was the minimally responsible thing to do. Many other theaters around the country have pulled midnight showings of this particular movie, just to be on the safe side.

It's precisely because movie theaters shouldn't be arenas for violence that the theater owners pulled the movie during the investigation into what happened. I think that's the right thing to do. It's not like this is the only movie complex in Pittsburgh, after all. Folks who desperately need to see this movie will find it elsewhere in the city.

If this move is trying to "segregate" violent people from nonviolent people, then so be it. Isn't that what prisons are for, to segregate the violent people away from the nonviolent people? (I'm exaggerating here for effect, in case that wasn't clear.) I'm uncomfortable using emotionally charged words with bad connotations to make a point, but in some cases, yes, segregating generic groups of people to keep the violence *out* of the theater is, um, a good thing. There have often been movies certain theater chains won't show for various reasons. Heck, my Columbia DVD Club won't stock THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. So, I politely stopped my membership. I didn't insist that the DVD club had no right to stock what they wanted to stock.

Side note: I don't care what color anybody was in this shooting incident. (They haven't caught the perpetrators yet, BTW.) I don't care what the myth is. I know that there was already concern about this particular film precisely due to its content before it ever was released.

With two incidents in two different states, and many other states taking precautionary measures, I'm not seeing how it's far-fetched to draw the conclusions I did: namely, that they were there at the theater and might not have shot the guy there had the theater not been showing this violent movie. (Yeah, it might still have happened, but probably out in Homestead somewhere else, in an alley perhaps, and not in a crowded theater complex.) Again, public safety is a huge factor here.

Are stereotypes wrong? Well, a guarded yes on that one. Remember that they got to *be* stereotypes based on something at some point. The problem is being prejudiced against innocent individual people because of those stereotypes. I see nothing wrong with looking at statistics and probabilities and pulling billboards or posters or movies for the good of public safety (especially in a capitalistic scenario where the owners of the theater made the decision, not the government). The theater owners could do what they wanted, and they did, and I'm glad they did.

Well, we're going around in circles.... After having read your last post I actually disagree with you more than before, but I think I've basically said everything I can say about this for the moment. I respect your opinion.