|
Dante Logos posted:But we don't like to talk about Job at the end of the book rather than in the middle. Great, at the end, he gets all of his stuff back, even has more kids. But then you remember that his first batch is dead, their lives ended in a single moment. You don't come back from that so easily. And job held no delusion that things were going to return back to normal. He was in sheer despair, not sure if he can recover from this. That primal feeling, and the realization that things will never be the same scares the living crap out of everyone, but especially Christians. Why? Because that will clearly mean that God isn't real or that God doesn't care about their well being. That their prayer and time spent at church and being several steps from a sociopath was a waste of time. And that is a crisis of faith that they are likely to never recover from. And that is why real conflict and real suffering will never be a part of Christian films. Because that feels like real life, and our daughter/son can die driving at night or that I can lose my job and can lose the house. That sort of stuff is scary and real and we don't want that. Even the stuff that is visceral like the post about a Mexican Christian film still have that bit of absurdity to them, even if they have this crazy scene about a botched abortion that better fits with a horror movie. The question of "Why does God let bad things happen?" has been at the center of Christian theological thinking for as long as there has been Christianity. It's something that Christians have to deal with every day if they're going to remain Christians. Being presented with that question in a film with a Christian movie isn't going to shake anyone. Christian media remind me of bad college creative writing courses. There's always someone who thinks they've got something really deep and clever to say and try to bend that into a story. Inevitably their message is shallow and stupid and they create a train wreck of a story to push it. It's not just Christian movies that reflect this, the fiction also tends to be this way. Hollismason posted:Very surprised Omega Code is not on here. It had Casper Van Deen!! Michael Ironsides!! I saw The Omega Code in the theater. It was one of the worst movie going experiences of my life. wid posted:I don't get what's going on there. Like, the earth blew up? The whole thing was just someone's lovely movie script that got stuck on a printer? That was Jesus showing up and blowing poo poo up. The printer thing was a computer that churned out the most generic interpretations of Revelations at appropriate moments in the plot. RC and Moon Pie posted:There are also a megaton of LDS-approved films out there. For some reason, I have a relative who loves the things and brings me old VHS tapes she's picked up and asks me to convert them to DVD. You can make a game out of guessing the release year. That film looks so hazy, it must be mid/late 1980s. Nope. Late 1990s. Since I'm from the wrong area of the country to have seen any Mormon films in this style, please share what they're like. I mean besides Battlestar Galactica. 
Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 12, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Not quite films, but Mike Huckabee has been whoring out his new children learning DVDs since leaving office. Once you get past the horrible animation you get to the even worse message. I remember thinking that it wouldn't survive long a couple years ago when he first started, but now there are 22 DVDs I am just about incoherent with rage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
joylessdivision posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOlzjMBkMh4 There has been a lot of SF stories about that topic but none of them handled it as stupidly as that trailer. Edit: The Google auto complete when I search for the film is "ending explained". And in my desperate search for what this ending is and why it has to be explained I've found out more interesting things. Watch the trailer first because you'll want to be completely baffled when you see it: Apparently there was another movie about cloning Jesus going wrong called Revelations and they spliced Jesus DNA with billionaire DNA. That's a set up for a punchline so easy that I won't lower myself to use it. From what I'm reading, I don't think this is a "Christian movie"; it's more of a religion-themed thriller. However, everything I'm finding makes it sound to be hilariously awful so I'm going to try to watch it. Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I-I-I . . . I can't even begin to comprehend the type of message it's trying to convey when there's a DINOSAUR MAN on the cover. I'm going to assume that the reason we don't have dinosaur men anymore is that god murdered all of them to teach us a lesson. But not a lesson about evolution.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
BrendianaJones posted:Ashley Tisdale was originally going to be in it as the female lead, but she dropped out. But still, you want an insane rapture movie, why not Cage? It won't even be the first insane rapture movie he's starred in! exquisite tea posted:If you got all your theology from Christian media you'd think that premillenial dispensationalism aka The Rapture was actually in Revelation instead of being some kooky off-shoot interpretation that few denominations actually believe. In fairness, if I got all my Christian theology from media I'd definitely become Catholic for the anti-monster super powers they gain. You never see protestants kicking vampire rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Having been to a few church lock ins this trailer is extra hilarious to me. If one Playboy can do all this I can only assume all pornography stores are poltergeist filled hell swamps. So that's what the grunting and bumping noises from the neighboring booth were!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
The other day I told some friends how much I wanted to see Noah if the studio didn't hack it to pieces. They were completely confused and then I explained to them what the movie was really like. Then their reaction was "We've got to see that!" Admittedly we're not the audience they're going to want for their 170 million dollar epic, but the marketing is turning off at least some people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:I wonder what would happen if someone made an explicitly Christian movie that wasn't low-effort garbage? Would it get shouted down by the True Believers for being too much like Secular Big Hollywood or would it potentially have an effect on the industry? Chariots of Fire was a critical success. To dispute what's been said in this thread, there's plenty of ways that you can use explicitly pro-Christian and religious themes in a movie and have it turn out well. These are things that have become embedded in western culture from nearly 2000 years of hegemony. There's centuries of examples of how to do it. The problem is with the modern audience for these films. They don't want to be challenged or deal with conflict or even face things slightly outside of their comfortable positions. They want to have their worldview strongly reaffirmed and to be told that they are inherently better than everyone else. So you get characters that are paragons with only the faintest trace of doubt which can be easily smashed by a strong authority figure telling them how awesome Christianity is. You get strawman villains who make the jerkiest of Internet atheists look like polite and rational people. Compare this to Chariots of Fire where one of the central conflicts of the movie is that the Christian runner has to decide between his faith, which he talks about demonstrating through running, and competing in the Olympics. There aren't any easy answers one way or the other for him and in the end he decides to choose faith. The important thing is that it's an actual conflict with human characters questioning if their religion is worth it. This current crop of films doesn't even want to ask that basic, everyday question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
raditts posted:Where did the whole "aversion to magic" thing come about in general Christian ideology, anyway? I don't think I've ever read the Bible in its entirety, but I've read at least a good 75% or so of it over the years and I've never seen anything really suggesting "MAGIC = EVIL" aside from I guess bad guys using magic. You weren't paying attention. That line about "not suffering a witch to live" is from Exodus. And in Deuteronomy there's this : "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead." Of course, the Old Testament also contains a lot of rules that aren't followed and modern Christianity likes to pick and choose which ones they get to use. Biblically, magic is a real thing that pops up all the time in the narrative. The Witch of Endor is the best known one because she summons the ghost of a dead prophet to come back and tell one of the kings what's up (Christians have to do some real flexing to fit that in with their concept of the afterlife).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I am a little more than halfway through God's Not Dead and I didn't think this movie would actually make me mad. It's actually making me angry. It's the wrongest movie to ever be wrong. I think by the movie's logic, that makes God's Not Dead a true story. (The big winning argument in the movie is "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?", completely missing the fundamental concept of fiction.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:*Well, the movies, at least; if there are any overtly Christian messages in Space Ace or the Dragon's Lair series, I missed them. Given how often dragons were used as metaphors for paganism, I think we can come up with a Christian message there. And the linearity of the games is definitely Calvinist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There was a dumb-as-poo poo history channel special about the possibility that Jesus went east to meet the Buddha as a teenager and that's why the gospels just describe his birth and his 30s. This was possibly a moonie thing as the unification life church has just purchased the history channel at that time. I recall that was a big theory in the 60's and 70's, though I find it unconvincing. Any Buddhist concepts integrated into early Christianity are more easily explained by the cultural contact resulting from trade than one man going on a hippie style spiritual journey. Alhazred posted:Yeah, I mean everybody knows that Jesus went to Britain. He had a layover on his way to bury some golden plates in North America.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Also, Ray Comfort's book "Scientific Facts in the Bible" is a hilarious read that an evangelical day shift coworker left for us night shift jerks. I found a copy of that book yesterday. Is there a conspiracy to spread it to atheists? Or just lovely books being thrown away?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:Lewis is pretty fondly viewed even among liberal Christians. This is obviously because of Narnia and, to a lesser degree the Screwyape Letters, which is still a fun read. Lewis wrote a lot more than that on Christianity, both in fictional allegories and theological writing. Narnia and Screwtape are his best known works, but his body of work is much larger.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:I loved Noah. It was just the right kinda crazy from Aronofsky. Loved the use of Big Bang imagery during the Genesis reading from Russel Crowe. Also Noah being driven mad by his mission to the extent of baby murder was an amazing twist. I don't think Noah was a good movie, but it was an interesting movie. I felt like things often got muddled with mixed messages. But the imagery was great and I appreciated the interesting interpretation of the story. FWIW, Noah and Exodus were not really money makers. While they may have grossed more than their budget, the studio only gets a fraction of the domestic gross and a fraction of a fraction of the international gross. Movie theaters do not show films out of the goodness of their heart, they take a cut of that ticket price. And distributors take a cut. And there's other guys who take a cut, especially when you're talking about overseas. On top of that the reported budget is only what the film corporation (the company the studio creates specifically for the film so they can keep all the profits on their own books and off the film's books as part of Hollywood accounting) reports so studio expenses like the marketing budgets aren't included. It's possible that with ancillary revenues that Noah was just barely in the black, though I think it's more likely that it was a significant money loser. Exodus is at least a hundred million off from making money and probably more than that. Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Bolocko posted:Noah brought in about $350m domestic plus international box office on a budget of about $130m, plus over $20m in home video business during the first four months of sales. It's not even the tricky accounting that Hollywood is infamous for. It's really as simple as film grosses are not the studio take. The studios only get about half of domestic gross back to them and about one-quarter of international gross back to them because people other than the studios have to get paid from those same ticket sales. There's variation in the percentages and you can never really know the extra costs involved, but it's a good rule of thumb for knowing if a film did well or not.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 11:44
|
|