That's one of the things we all love about America; free speech and the opportunity to hear an opposing view. Reading the "comments" is as enlightening as the article.

Dennis - You misunderstand. That 70 - 80 million isn't money Redford is saying is profits. That is money that the state and it's communities make off of the festival. Redford is saying that if they leave it will cost the state 70-80 million in lost revenues. It's probably worth the investment for the state if that is the case. Bananarules... You're an obvious bigot calling others narrow minded... It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

What I don't get is the complaint of Utah investing $312,000 into the festival. The state isn't just throwing money away. They are instead investing in Utah's economy and Utah's businesses. Consider that some of the wealthiest celebrities are in our state for 2 weeks, eating at our restaurants and sleeping in our hotels. That is *good* for Utah. Also, if you don't like a movie being shown, you have the option to refrain from watching the movie just as you have the option to refrain from purchasing alcohol from the State Liquor stores. I live in Utah (born and raised) and I am proud to say that the Sundance Film Festival takes place in my backyard. Thank you, Robert Redford!

So why doesn't Redford simply take some of that "$70 to [$]80 million" and reimburse the reported "$312,000 spent in tax payer dollars"? Would that make everyone happy or not? Especially where Redford's estimates have a plus-or-minus variance of $10 million. That seems like a perfectly logical question to me, but who ever said that logic prevails in the face of greed and petty selfishness?

I agree with Redford's comments. Then again, this is Utah, Land of the Mormon who are some of the most narrow minded people I've ever met in my life along with Witnesses. I'd wager those two groups are among the most narrow minded people on the planet, Earth!

I would also remind Mr Redford of the constitution. Under it, the Sutherland Inst. has the exact same right to disagree with him & voice their opinion about the content of some films Sundance shows, as he does in opposing the Inst's rights. To call them (the Inst) "narrow minded," boarders on- if not is -bigoted and very close-minded given it's context.