Your argument is that there is a massive Hollywood conspiracy aimed at making Christians look bad in films
No, that is *not* my argument. Once again you have thrown up straw men and argued with yourself. I have *never* suggested there is any "conspiracy" in Hollywood, that is absurd. Whew. For the umpteenth time here is what I asserted: I believe that there is a tendency with filmmakers to show Christians as psychos, morons or bigots or backwards, judgmental prudes. Stay on POINT! We're not talking about some ridiculous "conspiracy".
Prove your point, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is this anti-Christian conspiracy, and I will retract my comments and apologize.
No, I will not prove
your point. That is
your point, not mine. This isn't a court of law and I'm not compelled to prove anything to you. You either accept my opinion as correct or you don't, but judging from our "discussion" so far I think that you retracting any comments and apologizing is highly* unlikely.
Note your blatant contradiction:
But you take everything so literally (hence the no subtext line)... Of course there isn't an "Anti-black" or "anti-whatever" studio... the line about the "anti" studios was a joke
and then a few lines later you say:
But conversely there is no division that is specifically looking to produce films that make Christians look bad. It just doesn't exist.
Haha, you mock me taking your suggestion that there isn't an "anti-Christian" studio literally and then turn around and point out that there is no literal "anti-whatever" studio! Amazing. You can't even argue with yourself effectively.
That doesn't sound like a "joke" to me. It is quite apparent, Joe, that you are incredibly disingenuous. You spin your own comments and arguments, incessantly backpedaling and being patently untruthful.
But there isn't a mandate from the top
Who said there was? Again, you are arguing with yourself (poorly).
Also... Amos n Andy was a different time period. I believe Segregation was still legal when the show aired (I could be wrong), but you missed my point. You stated, way back, to list films in the last 25 years. Amos n Andy wasn't a film and it was much longer than 25 years ago.
Sigh... I didn't MENTION Amos and Andy! Someone ELSE did! Good lord, man, why is it that you can't understand that? I've now pointed out
two times that it was not my example (plus, you can see this fact for yourself). I simply remarked how this was a good example of how a studio doesn't have an "anti-Black" studio, yet they can still put out a racist film. Why? Because of this remark you made:
No one has a division producing films called Anti-Faith films. Or Pro-Evil Hillbilly Studios.
Who said this? YOU did. Not me. I merely pointed out that despite the fact that there is no "Anti-Faith" division (as you suggested), studios are still capable of making films that portray Christians negatively. This is so simple.
Just as a story about an inner city gang having a Hillbilly as it's lead character would be weird. Make sense?
No. I understand what you are saying, but what does that have to do with our discussion. We aren't talking about
who or
what is portrayed, but
how.
It would be like Aliens saying that INDEPENDENCE DAY makes them look bad. But the film is about an alien invasion.
We're not talking about imaginary creatures, we're talking about the portrayal of people, people of a certain faith... fictional characters based on real people, not monsters from outer space.
The old studio system is gone. Producers bring scripts to the studio after they have been developed. And producers come from all over the world. And the studio will green light based on whether or not they think it will make money. More films are produced independently than at the studios now a days. About 1/4 of the films the studios release (maybe even more) are bought after the film is made. They have little to do with the final cut.
And yet, Fox has a Fox Faith division (haha). Anyway, what we are talking about is how there is a tendency among filmmakers (in the U.S. particularly) of portraying Christians in a bad light. I'm not talking about some all-powerful studio(s), producers or goldfish, I'm talking about
filmmakers. Hello? You just cannot stay on point.
So many people outside Hollywood like to lump everyone here together.
I'm not "lumping" anyone, I'm simply observing, commenting on and giving examples of the tendency of
filmmakers to portray Christians in a bad light. It is you who is talking about Hollywood, divisions and studios, not me.
And your list is still in major doubt.
Your list was, I'm sorry, laughable.
Haha, well which is it? Is it merely in doubt or "laughable"(or is it a combo act)? The only thing "laughable" was the way you tried (in vain) to discount my long and convincing list.
I listed a dozen or so films that show people of faith in a positive light, that were heroes.
No, you made a list that included very few "Christians" and basically proved nothing. Sorry.
The spirit of your argument was that peple of faith are always shown in a poor light. I submitted a list that while not all Chrsitian - defintiely showed faith being celebrated. But you choose to nit-pick and be over-the-top literal, you are missing your own point.
No, I'm not missing anything except the logic and purpose in your argument (because there is none there). My argument was that filmmakers have a tendency to portray Christians in a bad light; as either psychos, morons, bigots or backwards, judgmental prudes. I offered a long, solid list of films that have portrayed Christians as either psychos, morons or bigots or backwards, judgmental prudes. Now, does this mean there is some "conspiracy" in Hollywood? NO. Does this mean that a few people in Hollywood are controlling things and out to portray Christians in a bad light? NO. Instead it is just as I said, indicative of a tendency of filmmakers to portray Christian in a negative light. The few paltry examples you provided were either not moderate to big films or they didn't have any Christians in them. You might call this "nit-picking", but since we're talking about filmmakers portraying Christians in a bad light, it just stands to reason that you'd need to mention films with Christian characters.
Again, to say that The Blues Brothers is anti-religious because they refer to the nun as a penguin is ludicrous.
Yes, it is. Who suggested that it is "anti-religious"? Not me. What I did say was that The Blues Brothers is an example of a film that portrays Christians as judgmental prudes (the nun) and (quite laughable) psychos (Jake and Elwood) and generally religious freaks (the people in the church dancing, doing acrobatics, etc). This is an example of a film that does portray Christians in some negative ways, but clearly it is not vindictive. And many of the films that portray Christians in a bad light *aren't* vindictive, but that doesn't change the fact that often they portray Christians as either psychos, morons, bigots or backwards, judgmental prudes.
And the spirit of the Passion of the Christ was to show the lengths of which Jesus went to die for us humans. A full on celebration of the Christian faith, but according to you it doesn't count because he's Jewish. Does that make any logical sense?
I never said that it wasn't a film that was positive about Jesus, I said that it is not an example of a film that portrays *Christians* in a positive light. What we were talking about is how filmmakers portray
Christians in a bad light, not Christ. We're discussing the overall tendency to show Christians in an unfavorable manner.
Call it name calling if you want. That's just how it is.
Uh, I don't "call it" name calling, what you did *is* name-calling... a few examples:
Your point would have more merit if you weren't insane.
You are hypocritical and close minded.
Are you mentally challeneged? Do you know you are a hypocrite?
Looks like name-calling to me... "that's just how it is".
Good luck and I am out of here. Last post on topic.
I think that is a wise decision, as you are obviously incapable of either providing compelling evidence of your assertion or reading and understanding mine.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
reply
share