MovieChat Forums > The 11th Hour (2007) Discussion > would have...

would have...

posted 16 years ago by phydipoo
30 replies | jump to latest

watched this, if the religious garbage was kept out.

What religious garbage? You should watch it before you comment?

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Taken directly from the 11th Hour website,

Religious Perspectives
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Rev. James Parks Morton
Steve McAusland

I'm confused as to why he included a religious perspective in the film at all, and one that included only some religious perspectives, and not all? Biased much??

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

Well, let me clue you in: I'm clergy, and the only religious perspective in this film is on the EXTRAS, which you can choose not to watch.

The film itself is secular.

So you have no more excuses not to watch it and take action.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Even so, as a person who is not of the Christian, Jewish or Islamic faith his decision to include only those religious perspectives deeply offended me. He should have included the perspectives of all major religions, or not included any at all. To only include three, shows his diregard of the religions that were left out. Shame on you Leo!

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

Well let me clue you in again, phyd: Christianity and Islam ARE the two biggest major religions.

Try again. Your arguments against him are silly.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Silly to you, but not to me. Can't stand to hear criticism of Leo? Guess what? I can relate to that, because not too long ago I was a fan too defending him at the drop of a pin. Now I can see him objectively and he's just human like you and I. Yes, he makes mistakes, and this was a mistake in my opinion, and one that cost him a fan.

Read again, I said include ALL major religions, not the top two. Btw, then why is Judaism included, and not Hinduism or Buddhism? Judaism, believe it or not, has a smaller percentage of world followers than Hinduism or Buddhism. Hmmm now why would he include the perspective of a religion that is followed only by 0.23% pf the world population? Could it be because the US economy and politics are highly dependent on the said religion? In that case, Leo's documentary is biased in its showcase of religious perspectives. period.

[–] Victorgoat 16 years ago

This film is about people from ALL walks of life having their say. Scientists, environmentalist AND religious leaders. Can't see anything wrong with that. Why shouldn't people from religions be included? They don't dominate the film or particularly talk about religion. People talk about climate change and what it can mean to us. Why bring politics into this OR religion. Its crazy. We all inhabit this planet and we are all affected by what is happening. See the film and you will understand!

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Nothing wrong with including religion, but I just don't agree with including ONLY some. Include all or include none, that's just my opinion. That said, I would have preferred if he left out religion completely, since it is a sensitive area, and one the film could have done without.
You are right in saying, "Why bring politics into this OR religion," but you'll have to ask Leo & Co. that, since I am only questioning their decision to exclude some religions.

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

Oh, baloney.

You simply don't want to face the reality that is global warming. Any excuse to keep from stepping up to the responsibility; I've heard it too many times.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

So just because I choose not to watch a film that has offended my religious beliefs it means I have denied the existence of global warning? How freaking dumb are you missy? Did I say anything to the effect of global warming not existing? Go on, I dare you to point out a single post by me, denying global warming. My complaint about this film is its involvement of religious perceptions. What the cowcrap does religion have to do with global warming? And more importantly what has my complaint got to do with refusing to acknowledge global warming? Get that into your pea sized brain. My beef is not with Global warming, it's with Leo's decision to include some and NOT all religions. On the other hand you are just accusing me when infact you have failed to address or justify the use of ONLY three religious perspectives in this film, including Judaism followed by only 0.23% of the world's population, and why I should not get offend as person of a different religious background- one that has a bigger percentage of followers than Judaism. Yeah, go ahead and accuse me, its the easiest way to save face Missbimbo, because you will never be able to refute me. Birken and Leo couldn't, and neither will you.

Before this film, i was a fan of his. Oh yeah, I know about you too, watched you getting kicked out of worldcrossing. Been on all the Leo fan forums and defended the man even when he didn't deserve to be. My adoration stopped short the minute I found out about the "religious perspectives" in 11th hour.

Get a *beep* life. If Leo was not in this film, I doubt very much you would have watched this yourself. Think a little before you open your preachy pie hole. Btw according to the UN, cattle farming generates more greenhouse gas than transportation, and what has Leo done in this respect eh? I have never heard him condemn cattle factory farming, and I know why, the man still loves his steak. What a hypocrite. It's Something he can give up, there are other sources of protein. I don't eat beef, yet he does- the great preacher of global warming!

[–] haha10024 16 years ago

You know he wasn't the only writer for this film?

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

That maybe, but it's his film. He had to brief the writer(s), go over the work with them, and give his approval on the final script. So he IS responsible foremost, for the content.

[–] Victorgoat 16 years ago

Finally received the DVD today and was able to watch the film again. There is no reference to religion at all in the film. It is about climate change. It is a GREAT film and Leo is barely visible but the information and hope that this film gives should not be missed. Sooner or later everyone is going to face the problems that are set out in this film and seeing this film will really help. Afraid religion is not going to be of much help but learning who we really are and our relationship to this planet we live on will.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Victor Goat, I agree with you on two things,
Firstly, on Global warming being one of the biggest issues faced by mankind in the years to come, and yes I educate myself and try to do my best. I had CFL bulbs installed in my home before Leo endorsed them on Oprah, recycle anything that's recyclable, take public transport mostly and walk whenever possible, don't eat steak/beef, plant trees and encourage others to do so, have two compost bins for suitable waste. There is only hydro electricity generation in my country, so that is something I am not concerned with as it's more eco-friendly than coal for instance. If and when they introduce less environmentally friendly methods of power generation due to the power shortage I will consider installing solar power panels in my house. In saying all this I hope to dispel the belief that I'm one of those who oppose global warming and taking action against it.
It offends me when people who are utterly ignorant about my life come in here and accuse me of doing so. Lastly by not watching this film it does not mean I oppose global warming. Watching this film is NOT one's ONLY means of showing solidarity to a necessity cause. There is plenty of material to read online. Power to those who watched the film, and I don’t doubt it’s message is a moving eye-opener.

Secondly I agree with you that religion has nothing to do with global warming, nor will it help in anyway. That is exactly what I said in an earlier post. So I wish Leo had not involved it at all in his film, but since he did, at least chosen to be more tactful about it. Clearly he wasn't, and yes Victor goat, there is a religious perspective in the film, this was highlighted on Leo’s website as I pointed out to you earlier, and according to a poster on this thread it is included in the DVD’s extras section.

[–] ugh_the_boot 16 years ago

Are you for real? I watched this movie last night and let me tell you I completely despise religion (any and all of it) and not once did I hear any religious bullcrap! Infact come to think of it that's probably the most refreshing aspect about the whole production (didn't occur to me till just now how void of religion it is).

I gave this movie a 10/10 because the issues it addresses really are the most important humanity will ever face. It's do or die time.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

It is reportedly in the extras of the DVD. Did you check out that?

And refer to one of my ealier posts in this thread, where I have cut and pasted the list of people talking on relgious perspectives, from the 11th Hour website itself. Here is the link to the page on 11th Hour Action website, which has listed all those interviewed for the film- http://11thhouraction.com/ideasandexperts

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

I went overboard in my criticism of you, phydipoo. My apologies.

I simply don't get why you're so offended when several of us who've seen it have even verified that religion is NOT part of the film.

And if it helps, in the DvD extras, the religious talk that I've seen is limited to that from a rabbi.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Apology accepted. Sorry if I came across as harsh too =)

Let me explain this better, I did not watch this film so I am unware of what is in it, but I assumed it contained religious perspectives based on the information published on Leo's website and the 11th Hour website from the very beginning (prior to the release). They had the same list of people, as the ones to be interviewed on the film, and in all fairness anybody reading it including me got the idea that all these people were in the film, as promoted by Leo's website.

I wrote several times to the webmaster at the o-site and on Leo's myspace requesting an explanation as to why they were including a religious perspective, and one focusing only on three. I never heard from them, and I was fed up with it all by the end. The result was me getting over Leo.
Now I know I wrote several heated mails, I don't know whether they edited the film back then to remove those interviews because it was still in the post-production stage at the time OR whether the plan all along was to only include them in the DVD extras. However I think it's the former, because if it were the latter they could have replied to me and said that religious perspectives are not included in the main film. I have gotten replies from them in the past, so why did they ignore several emails by me now?

Anyhow it's weird to know they've included only the interview with the Rabbi, when the websites state three other persons; an Imam and two Reverends. Obviously these people were interviewed at some point meaning that their intention was to include them in the film. Maybe they realised it a mistake and edited/left them out. I'd like to think that, but whatever the case I can never view Leo the same way I used to as a fan.

[–] Victorgoat 16 years ago

Phydipoo this morning I watched the bonus features. A chance to see extended interviews with the people involved in the film. Right at the end there was 'The Religious Perspective'. So yes, there are religious people who speak for about five minutes at the end of the bonus feature although I don't remember seeing them in the actual film. One representing the Jewish faith, one representing the Christian faith and one the Muslim faith. They do not talk much about their religions as such but about the need for the various religions to endorse the environmental movement and think about climate change. Am not a particularly religious person myself and am mindful to think that religion has not helped as far stopping the degrading of our environment. The various environmentalist and scientists people who spoke before them made so much more sense to me but suppose it was felt there should be a chance to give organized religions a voice too. It would seem they tried to include the three major religions of our time without giving preference to any. They all three seem to speak for a few minutes each. Did not think any religion was favored. Far more time was given to the environmentalist and scientists. Do watch it if you get a chance I really think you would enjoy it. Was impressed by the effort that went into this film and the obvious intention to give everyone a fair go.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Thanks for sharing that bit of info with me.

How can you call them the three main religions? Judaism has less than 1% of worldwide followers as opposed to Hinduism or Buddhism. Don't even get me started on Islam, and I'm not referring to the numbers here (refer faithfreedom.org). So does that mean all else are less important?
Even worse, how CAN you say they've made a fair representation of religions? Of course those three religions were favored over the ones that were left out by leo. So there is religious favoration in the film. wow, just wow. Sorry, I don't think I'll ever watch this movie as impressive as the rest of the content maybe, because I am too offended by the sheer tactlessness of Leo & Co.

Go ahead and convince me why it is just of Leo to include just three religions, and why it is unjust of me to get offended as a person of a different religious faith. If anyone can do that I may give this film a shot. Leo's end has kept quiet on this matter on the numerous occasions I mailed them, me thinks they have NO reasonable answer.

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

What exactly do you WANT from this documentary? Should it give a platform to deists, taoists, wiccans & one-eyed Episcopalians as well?

It's a documentary, and as such can't be expected to showcase EVERY religion. That's simply an impossible task.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

I stated ealier, it should have included all OR none. Ideally, religion should not have been included at all, but since he was SO hell bent on including it, at least shown a little respect to other faiths. It's as if they don't exist nor matter to him. If that's the attitude he has towards people of different faiths such as me, why on earth should I watch his film? I'm not in his target audience, it's as simple as that.

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

This is utter nonsense, given the thousands of religious faiths that exist.

Your argument really IS ridiculous.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Listen, out of convience you seem to be getting only half of what I say. I did NOT say the ONLY option was to include all religions, I also said on the other hand, he COULD have excluded all, and that should have been the ideal scenario. And really, you think there are a thousand faiths? Don't exaggerate to save face, you still haven't given me a reasonale answer as to why it's fair to ONLY include Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Until you can do so, I'd greatly appreciate if you keep your smart-ass comments to yourself

I think he could have spared a couple more minutes to include at least Hinduism and Buddhism if he really wanted to. Hinduism is the third major religion and Buddhism is at fourth. You don't think he could have at least tried to show a little respect to those two?

You are the one who is ridiculous, you can't even refute what I am saying or offer a reasonable answer to the question I posed, if you can't do that stop coming in here and calling my claim ridiculous. Give up already!

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

Yes, you DID say that he should have represented ALL or none. That is an impossibility.

I did refute what you wrote, and I did offer a reasonable response.

You're the one who needs to give it up, because you're beginning to contradict yourself.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

What I mean by ALL, is ALL the major recognised religions. I have repeatedly stated this EARLIER in this thread. Refer the first page, I said ALL the MAJOR religions (so I am not reffering to cults (scientology), African religions, etc.), where you only came up with the stupid arguement that the ones included were the major religions. Save for Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism have a higher following percentage than Judaism. So your arguement fell flat.

(from the world fact book, world religions by percentage -Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.) )

Why is it impossible to include all the major religions, the top five or six OR none? it is NOT impossible. why is it IMPOSSIBLE TO leave out all religions? That was one option I suggested too. It would be rational to include Hinduism and Buddhsim, because China and India have the most dynamic fast growing economies in the world- contributing largley to pollution, shouldn't the film address religions followed by large percentage of the populaitons in these nations? From the very beginning I have maintained he should have at least shown perspectives from these two religions.

You have NOT refuted a single argument by me, except in your head- stop lying leo fan! SHOW me where you refuted my argument. My arguement from the beginning is that it was not right of Leo to include religion, and ONLY three religions. Have you answered this anywhere on this thread? NO. Show me proof before you sprout garbage.

Here is my arguement, line by line, answer them or leave this thread

-It was unfair and tactless of Leo to include religion, and ONLY three.

-Judaism has only a 0.23% following, so NOT all the religions showed are based on their rank, and he has included judaism for political reasons. So he is biased, he is wrong

- He could have included Buddhism and Hinduism, but he didn't so he has no regard for them

- I have a right to be offended as a person of a different religious faith, due to all of these reasons, and thus I have a right to complain here without you calling me stupid

Refute, these or just shut the FUNK up.

You give up, this is my thread, and I have not seen anyone come close to providing me a constructive answer except Victorgoat.

[–] ReinaMissy 16 years ago

I AM giving up, because you're clearly irrational.

You're on IGNORE henceforth.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

You are giving up because there is no fair explanation as to why he did it, and it was wrong. You cannot justify what is wrong.

No major loss, that I'm on your ignore list. Unlikey I will see much of you elsewhere. Unless you forgot, I no longer support Leo's career.

[–] Victorgoat 16 years ago

Have idea about Leo's reasoning. But for me I suppose nature is a kind of religion. Believe we are just one of the many species that inhabit this earth and we are all very interdependent and precious to whoever created us. We all think very differently where religion is concerned and many people do not believe in any of the recognized faiths but does that make them any less religious I wonder? Probably would agree with you it may have been better if he hadn't included any of the 'man created' religions but certainly don't think that is a reason for not watching this very important film about our survival.

[–] phydipoo 16 years ago

Thank you Victorgoat, you are the only poster so far who has offered a constructive answer, and I appreciate that.