08 Jun 06
To be sure...it is not the actors and the directors...they are just doing their jobs...it is the writers that you want to get your undies all bunched up at.
Besides, the writers are trying to make believable characters (well..some are) and given the majority of "Hollywood" movies are from American soil and the average reading level is the US (hence understanding of language, grammer and such) is an 8th grade level, one does have to make sure to appeal to the majority. Were one to use no profanity, use proper english (even American english) and have all of the actors speak with proper diction and inflection, then movies would be really boring and not even remotely believable in this modern time.
We all have to put up with things that we think are wrong, unfair, BS and or otherwise.....so deal it with it like the rest of us.
12 Jun 06
just wanted to let know that I read all the remarks.
I know people want to just make money, I know that they are also just doing their jobs, and I know that by saying "Wow" for example has the same or less meaning to people using Jesus Christ Name.
Then I do agree, its the writers that has to be blamed, but surely, doesnt a writer or a movie director want to let everyone watch the movie(s) he/she has made? Why then offend Christianity and or even sometimes any other religion? Do they really think that people will still sit down and enjoy something that was ment to be enjoyed. No! Not one of you will sit and watch a movie if it offends you, anyone?
Mel Gibson made the Passion of the Christ for a reason. Maybe he found God in a way that no one ever did. His movie has brought alot of people to God and are now Christians, in all countries! What he did before or say before in movies, is done, its gone, its history. What matters now is the future.
Swearing people and just by swearing for the fun it, is not "in". It actually makes you a very rude person who doesnt know what to say but swear, and I believe that you can not say something nice by swearing.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by Nicksten**K Yeah!
just wanted to let know that I read all the remarks.
I know people want to just make money, I know that they are also just doing their jobs, and I know that by saying "Wow" for example has the same or less meaning to people using Jesus Christ Name.
Then I do agree, its the writers that has to be blamed, but surely, doesnt a writer or a movie director ...[text shortened]... t know what to say but swear, and I believe that you can not say something nice by swearing.
I'm sorry. I don't usually swear too much, just thought it was getting awfully tense in here.
Like some one said earlier, there are a lot of things that others do which one may see as offensive or rude, it all depends on their social background. I think that mast people try to appeal to the majority and unfortunately for those who are Christians, in today’s world they seem to be quickly becoming the minority, there for no longer appealing as much to the creative money making mind as the common Joe.
As a creative writer myself I believe if the writer portrays something as truthfully as he/she is able to do so, then in my eyes they're walking the write path. Though there are a lot of terrible writers out now, as there have always been (artists too), who merely want to provoke the shock factor. This isn't so cool.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by phillip pullmanSo in your opinion, authenticity precedes courtesy?
**K Yeah!
I'm sorry. I don't usually swear too much, just thought it was getting awfully tense in here.
Like some one said earlier, there are a lot of things that others do which one may see as offensive or rude, it all depends on their social background. I think that mast people try to appeal to the majority and unfortunately for those who are ...[text shortened]... always been (artists too), who merely want to provoke the shock factor. This isn't so cool.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseCompletely depends on the audience and the desired goal. The world for a creative mind is a mind field with many pitfall and tripwires waiting for you to stumble. All you can do is stay true to your intentions and often uncompromising ideas; otherwise they would never be such a thing as a free thinker....in my opinion.
So in your opinion, authenticity precedes courtesy?
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by phillip pullmanFair point. Do you recon aesthetic appeal holds no prerequisite to the written medium?
Completely depends on the audience and the desired goal. The world for a creative mind is a mind field with many pitfall and tripwires waiting for you to stumble. All you can do is stay true to your intentions and often uncompromising ideas; otherwise they would never be such a thing as a free thinker....in my opinion.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by Nickstendoesnt a writer or a movie director want to let everyone watch the movie(s) he/she has made? Why then offend Christianity and or even sometimes any other religion?
just wanted to let know that I read all the remarks.
I know people want to just make money, I know that they are also just doing their jobs, and I know that by saying "Wow" for example has the same or less meaning to people using Jesus Christ Name.
Then I do agree, its the writers that has to be blamed, but surely, doesnt a writer or a movie director ...[text shortened]... t know what to say but swear, and I believe that you can not say something nice by swearing.
Controversy sells. The more christians fuss about movies like Da Vinci Code, the more others will want to see what all the fuss is about. Even christians can't resist going, just so they can rant about all its errors and mistakes with their buddies later on.
In (radio shock-jock) Howard Stern's movie, it was pointed out that the average Stern hater listened for twice as long as the average Stern fan. The reason most commonly given was, "I want to hear what he'll say next."
If you produce a movie that offends no one, how interesting can it really be? Most of those are boring, G-rated fluff. Even an action movie needs a villian; someone for the audience to hate. It's only natural that people who share similarities in appearance, character, or life situation with the villian may get offended at the portrayal.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell, you explained it good. The point is, swear in the movie, and some may dislike it, use and abuse the Name of God in the movie, and you offend millions of people.
[b]doesnt a writer or a movie director want to let everyone watch the movie(s) he/she has made? Why then offend Christianity and or even sometimes any other religion?
Controversy sells. The more christians fuss about movies like Da Vinci Code, the more others will want to see what all the fuss is about. Even christians can't resist going, just ...[text shortened]... pearance, character, or life situation with the villian may get offended at the portrayal.[/b]
The fact of the matter that there are age restriction in movies, indicates more or less the sensitivity you could experience. Surely it must cater for more things too for example, the Da Vinci Code movie might have an age restriction of 18 LSV (Language, Sex and Violence) It must also indicate that this movie could offend Christianity by having another symbol after the 18LSV or something like that. This way people know what they will expect.
You must go out more and watch other movies, there are many out there that is really good, try it and you'll see.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by NickstenSome of the best movies offers social critique. In American society (where Hollywood appears to be located), effective social critique almost requires offending certain types of Christians.
Then I do agree, its the writers that has to be blamed, but surely, doesnt a writer or a movie director want to let everyone watch the movie(s) he/she has made? Why then offend Christianity and or even sometimes any other religion? Do they really think that people will still sit down and enjoy something that was ment to be enjoyed. No! Not one of you will sit and watch a movie if it offends you, anyone?
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by WulebgrConsidering that the films Hollywood chooses to honour (Oscar nominees in recent years, for instance) have bombed at the box office while films like Passion (which Hollywood refused to take up) were so popular - I'd dispute your assertion that Hollywood is located in American society. Unless you're simply referring to geographical location.
Some of the best movies offers social critique. In American society (where Hollywood appears to be located), effective social critique almost requires offending certain types of Christians.
Besides, social critique can run both ways. Is there any reason why effective social critique cannot offend certain types of secularists?
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by NickstenThe point is, swear in the movie, and some may dislike it, use and abuse the Name of God in the movie, and you offend millions of people.
Well, you explained it good. The point is, swear in the movie, and some may dislike it, use and abuse the Name of God in the movie, and you offend millions of people.
The fact of the matter that there are age restriction in movies, indicates more or less the sensitivity you could experience. Surely it must cater for more things too for example, the Da Vi ...[text shortened]... re and watch other movies, there are many out there that is really good, try it and you'll see.
Here's something to chew on. Christians go around passing judgment on people of various lifestyles; they have no qualms about who they offend. Why then should the rest of the world care one bit if millions of christians are offended? The real problem is that Christians take themselves a bit too seriously.
It must also indicate that this movie could offend Christianity by having another symbol after the 18LSV or something like that.
I disagree. Certain movies offend more people than just christians. We don't want to clutter the ratings system with a bunch of letters for all the groups of people who might be offended by a film. Besides, online and newspaper reviewers already warn people in advance that the movie contains controversial religious material.
I thought the Da Vinci Code was a strictly average movie. Not terrible, but not great either. I've certainly seen better films.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt does, although I'd say there are substantially more than two ways. The world consists not of Christians and Others, but of many sorts of people. Nearly all will find some social critique personally offensive. However, Christian hegemony runs rampant in U.S. culture today, and thus should offer one of the clearest targets for social critique. It would be a target more often than it is if the Almightly Dollar were not the principal object of most filmmakers, and if the Academy consisted of fewer geldings.
Besides, social critique can run both ways. Is there any reason why effective social critique cannot offend certain types of secularists?
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by WulebgrIf anything, I'd say the "Christian hegemony" is far more of a target than it should be. After all, when was the last time you saw a sympathetic character in a Roman collar in a Hollywood film? How is it that DVC (which even serious secularists won't touch with a barge-pole) gets as many millions thrown behind it as it did? How much did the "Almighty Dollar" come into consideration in recent Academy Awards?
It does, although I'd say there are substantially more than two ways. The world consists not of Christians and Others, but of many sorts of people. Nearly all will find some social critique personally offensive. However, Christian hegemony runs rampant in U.S. culture today, and thus should offer one of the clearest targets for social critique. It would be a ...[text shortened]... re not the principal object of most filmmakers, and if the Academy consisted of fewer geldings.
I'm sorry - you must be living in a different world from me if you think Hollywood isn't taking cheap shots at Christianity almost every chance it gets.