What do you think about the strategy to keep the subject matter secret?


What do you think about the strategy to keep the subject matter of this film secret?

I can see both pros and cons to this strategy.

Pros:

- Keeping the subject matters secret as long as possible stops hardcore atheists from making endless troll attacks against the film now, which they will inevitably do if they learn that the film mentions God in a positive way.

- Keeping the subject matter secret possibly creates intrigue as to what the film is about.

Cons:

- Keeping the subject matter secret may possibly keep interest low because no one will care about a film if they do not know what it is about.

- The subject matter will inevitably become clear before the film is shown in theatres, so the secrecy may accomplish nothing other than keeping interest in the film low until it starts to suffer from troll attacks which will come before it gets to theaters anyway.

As well, having hardcore atheists frame the discussion with their biases of what they say the film is about, rather than the filmmakers themselves doing so, would not be in the film's best interest.

Those are my thoughts, but like I said, what do you think about this secrecy strategy?

And even if you are a hardcore atheist who answers this question, if you were the filmmakers, wouldn't you want your film to be protected against troll attacks? That is to say, just because you disagree with the film's potential POV, you can still answer the question here honestly by disregarding your biases and putting yourself in the filmmakers' shoes.

reply

"Troll attacks" have little influence on a film's success. It is immoral to misrepresent what a film is because people may spend money to see one thing and then be given another.

reply

"Troll attacks" have little influence on a film's success.


How do you know?

The troll attacks against Expelled, including by atheists organizations like NSCE, probably misled a few people not to watch it. Yes Expelled was a success anyway, but it may have been even more successful without such troll attacks.

And such troll attacks misrepresent the film, just from the side of those who oppose the film rather than the side of the filmmakers.

I agree with your point that a film should not be misrepresented.

But something different is happening in Monumental's case, and that is the subject of this thread. The filmmakers are thus far not misrepresenting it, they are simply not saying what it is about.

reply

The title of the film (Monumental: In Search of America's National Treasure) strongly implies that it is about America's landmarks and monuments and not a religion film, so they are being somewhat deceptive there.

Most ideological films and really hyped films get some sort of backlash on IMDb and other sources, but a lot of those films are still very successful. Many Christian films that I have viewed tend to assert their version of Christianity as true without really presenting any strong arguments. I think it is reasonable to be critical of that.

reply

[deleted]

Except that many of America's most important landmarks and monuments have to do with the Christian foundations of this nation.


Nope.. most of them have Pagan imagery, which is what this nation's laws are based upon - the laws and principles of Pagan Greece and Rome.

reply

How was Expelled a success?

reply

How was Expelled a success?

It successfully provided Kryptonite for its own cause. Way to go, EXPELLED! Lying and deceiving people in order to obtain interviews is always the good "Christian" way to go about things!

ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined

reply

What do you think about the strategy to keep the subject matter of this film secret?

Given the title and the star, it's probably about Kirk Cameron fondling himself in front of a computer.

ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined

reply

[deleted]

I think it's silly, but typical of these live events.

Kirk pretty much gave it away on Fox. It's about the National Monument to the Forefathers, right?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Navaros, the problem with your "pros" and "cons" is your one-sidedness. Here's why.

Anyone who knows who Kirk Cameron is, most likely knows he is a bible thumping bigot. So the subject matter of this biased revisionist propaganda, disguised as a history documentary, was not a secret at all. If the true subject of the "film" was supposed to be a secret, then the only answer to your question is, it was kept secret to protect the lies peppered throughout.

reply