Rant: Jesus Ruined Rock And Roll, And Now He Wants My Movies Too

Comment on “Rant: Jesus Ruined Rock And Roll, And Now He Wants My Movies Too”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

1. Chuck Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 13:39

   You equate Kirk Cameron with the film way too heavily. The Kendrick Brothers and Sherwood Baptist Church are the architects--Cameron simply wanted to help. Look at the success of Flywheel on a $10,000 budget, and Facing the Giants, on $100,000, and now Fireproof, on $500,000, and it's clear Sherwood can continue to put out a film every couple of years that will be highly purposeful and profitable.
   
   It's not just their Christian messages that have Christians and church leaders like me fired up (no pun intended) about Sherwood's films. They're masterful storylines and screenplays in which the audience laughs, cries, cringes (sometimes, admittedly, at the minor actors' acting) and THINKS.

1. Adam Farrell Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 13:40

   Agreed! You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Over the weekend I went to see Religulous with a coworker of mine. I was unaware she was a devoted Christian(Kirk Cameron style) and she was unaware of what she was walking into. Needless to say, the ride home was filled with preaching and talk of Bill Maher having no soul, all the while ensuring me I'd probably never hang out with this girl again. I defended Religulous and Bill Maher to no avail. I am apparently a sinner. For watching a movie. And liking it. What?!?!? Interesting experience.

1. Scott Ward Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 13:54

   You said that Christains won't buy the tickets for "Religulous" but the fact of the matter is that your wrong. I am a seminary student and one of my teachers was talking about how he wanted to go see it, just to see what Bill Maher has to say. So Bill Maher didn't do on his own accord. He did it just like everyone else.
   
   As far as the other, why is it a problem that Christians want to have movies that reflect their faith? I have seen movies that have parts that were absolutely unecessary, they just through something in there just to make it have a higher rating. For instance swearing is necessary for prison movies but doesn't always work in other places. Sometimes certain things just seem out of place, but at times it just seems like they are trying to make movies bad just so that they can add things like that.
   
   If you want to rant on something, how about ranting on the fact that everyting has been done in movies and they have forgotten that you have to have a story in a movie. Otherwise they would not be so keen on redoing movies again and again. Why do you think TV shows with actual plot lines work - Heroes for example.
   
   I am sorry but you don't really prove your point.

1. lpadron Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 15:52

   The article is well written and enjoyable. That's worth mentioning. The reasoning, however, isn't on par with the writing. Both kinds of films already have built in audiences. Both receive free adverstising and hype from their respective audiences. Replace "christian idealogy" with "liberal idealogy" and the essay applies just as well.
   But you should really do yourself a favor and take the time to study the breadth of thought and behavior of christianity rather than relying on the easy stereotype to make your point.
   

1. JoshT Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 16:00

   ------------------------------------
   Scott Said: You said that Christains won't buy the tickets for "Religulous" but the fact of the matter is that your wrong. I am a seminary student and one of my teachers was talking about how he wanted to go see it, just to see what Bill Maher has to say. So Bill Maher didn't do on his own accord. He did it just like everyone else.
   -------------------------------------
   
   Obviously, some will go. But in general, you know as well as I do that most won't. Just as most Atheists won't be running out to see Fireproof. A couple of exceptions do not disprove the rule.
   
   --------------------------------------
   Scott Said: As far as the other, why is it a problem that Christians want to have movies that reflect their faith?
   --------------------------------------
   
   You didn't read what I wrote. I never said it was. That has nothing to do with the premise of anything I wrote.
   
   

1. JoshT Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 16:06

   -------------------------
   lpadron says: Both kinds of films already have built in audiences. Both receive free adverstising and hype from their respective audiences. Replace "christian idealogy" with "liberal idealogy" and the essay applies just as well.
   ----------------------------
   
   I agree, both kinds of films already have built in, specific audiences. I said so above, assuming you actually went through the trouble to read more than the first two paragraphs. Religulous however, does NOT have the built in advertising mechanism of movies like Fireproof, An American Carol, or An Inconvenient Truth, because it's built-in audience is non-religious people... and non-religious people don't meet or organize in any kind of groups which would allow that kind of advertising. There's not a non-religious preacher up there telling non-religious people to go see it. The notion is sort of ridiculous.

1. Sam Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 16:20

   1. I haven't seen any of these films yet, and won't be seeing either Fireproof or The Family that Preys and probably won't see Religulous. All these films benefited from people going to see them because they wanted a film that caterered to their beliefs.
   
   2. I think the Jewish Ben Stien would be a little bit surprised to know that you thought he was waving around a cross
   
   3. Do I think that there were people going to see all of these films regardless of quality because of the message? Absolutely, though I don't see why it's any different than audiences who mindlessly go to the latest romantic comedy or horror film.

1. Kevin Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 17:02

   Sherwood Baptist Church made Fireproof, not Cameron. Also, the movie was not made for profit, it was made to support the ministries of the church. For example, Sherwood's last movie, Facing the Giants, helped to pay for a new building at the church. I would also like to note that Cameron did not accept a fee for doing Fireproof. Instead he asked that a donation be made to the camp for terminally ill children that he helps operate. This article deals in a whole lot of absolutes, which seems to be on of the things Christians get criticized for most often. For example, you said no one would go see a movie like Religulous or Fireproof unless they already agreed with the philosophy of that movie. I just saw Fireproof and loved it and I plan on seeing Religulous even though I disagree with much of what Maher has to say. The point is that I still listen to Maher and others like him to see what they have to say. I consider it and make up my own mind. However, people like you seem unwilling to consider that such a thing is possible and just write me off as being a sheep.

1. marco Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 17:02

   Now, I'm no super religious kind of person like the people with the Jesus pamphlet, but I do not like Bill Maher. I mean he's a complete jerk and his views are way to extreme in my opinion. His movie is just to prove his point and well its just more of who he is; being a jerk and making people look dumb. He doesn't let the people he interviews speak at all and just asks gotcha questions. He is very condescending in the movie and it just makes me sick of him. Also his movie is very one sided. He believes religion is bad in the extreme literal belief in it and well thats just a complete farce because most people of any religions would be considered moderates of that faith. Meaning they don't take the teachings literally. Also Maher fails to look at the basic values of most religions which is in relation to the laws of society. Such as murder that is considered wrong in practically all religions and cultures. Is that not good? He gives no credit to any religions.
   Now he does bring up some good points of religion and well people can't hear them because of him being such a jerk. Such as the fear aspect, most people with faith fear something associated in faith such as "God's wrath" or eternal damnation. People want to be good for selfish reasons. Thats a interesting completely logical thing to talk about, but Maher just goes too far and talks about how all religions are the equivalent to a cult.(even though cult is a Christian word to describe any organization that teaches something that contradicts the bible)
   

1. lpadron Says:
   October 8th, 2008 at 12:21

   Josh: I agree, both kinds of films already have built in, specific audiences. I said so above, assuming you actually went through the trouble to read more than the first two paragraphs.
   
   I did. I enjoyed it.
   
   Josh: Religulous however, does NOT have the built in advertising mechanism of movies like Fireproof, An American Carol, or An Inconvenient Truth, because it's built-in audience is non-religious people... and non-religious people don't meet or organize in any kind of groups which would allow that kind of advertising. There's not a non-religious preacher up there telling non-religious people to go see it. The notion is sort of ridiculous.
   
   Really? What about atheist meetings, left wing chat rooms and Maher's HBO show? And what is meant by "non-religious people"? Do you mean atheists and agnostics or just folks who don't care either way?
   Given the acces to info provided by the internet access to potential viewers is probably the same for Maher as it is for the pastor "up there". Perhaps the non-religious find Maher a bore or the subject overdone.
   
   Also, you previously wrote: Maher’s movie attempts to achieve that not by banking big box office and glutting up theaters with similar movies espousing his pre-approved message, but by crafting a documentary which encourages those who do see his film to think for themselves, stand up, and then make their own opinions heard.
   
   What makes you think many religious people haven't already thought Maher's position through for themselves and found it lacking in substance? Implicit in your statement is that the proper position to hold is Maher's. That's rather obvious, right?
   
   Finally, you previously wrote this as well: "That's right, church donations spent on movie tickets instead of, you know, feeding the poor or buying bling for some deserving televanglist."
   
   That's always a somewhat humorous observation by religion bashers. The amount of time, money and resources given to charities and directly to the poor by religious folk/churches/organizations always exceeds that given by atheist types. Your criticism is better spent on the latter and not the former. Let's see a piece on that.
   

1. ScreenRant.com Says:
   October 27th, 2008 at 17:46

   So why aren't fans of Kevin Smith movies, the Saw franchise, Judd Apatow, etc. labeled as "sheep?"
   
   I'm a Christian and I was pretty much dragged to see Fireproof because I thought it was going to suck. While I found it semi-cheesy at first and of course "preachy" by the end I thought it was a very emotionally powerful film.
   
   Vic

1. JoshT Says:
   October 27th, 2008 at 18:00

   Hey Vic, good to see you over here sir!
   
   -----------
   VIC SAID: So why aren't fans of Kevin Smith movies, the Saw franchise, Judd Apatow, etc. labeled as "sheep?"
   -----------
   
   My answer to that would be because they aren't being pushed to go see those movies by specific organizations with a certain degree of power over the people in their membership.

1. Dispositor Says:
   November 14th, 2008 at 12:29

   JoshT,
   
   No church people are "forced" to support christian movies, it's just the wise thing to do and people are hurting for better movies than the CRAP that's out there (crap is not a curse word.) Consider how anyone liberal was supposed to vote for Obama in the election. They all felt a sense of duty to do so, didn't they?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)