Is Hollywood Anti-Religion?

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

Regarding hostility to religious belief, on TV at least I seem to sense a pro-Catholic bias and an anti-evangelical bias.

You may have a point.  I rather like the way Catholicism is treated in Blue Bloods, for example.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Regarding hostility to religious belief, on TV at least I seem to sense a pro-Catholic bias and an anti-evangelical bias. The Catholics fight against forces of darkness, the evangelicals (preachers, especially) are out to get rich or are secretly monsters and/or crazy. Could be my choice of programming though.

Generally it is the lower level Catholics priests or lay members that are the good guys/heros though from what I watch (lots of British and mysteries, I want police procedural to focus on the policing stuff and less personal drama so BlueBloods feels more family drama to me, so never have watched it since one or two episodes when it first came out; I don't watch realistic family drama because I feel like I am intruding on private moments if it is done well).  And Catholic priests rarely actually teach actual Catholicism in the shows I watch.  They come across as actually pretty generic feel good, God loves you treacle from the stuff I have seen, not the actual power I see in Catholic teaching (the huge sanctity of marriage and procreation for example is rarely mentioned).  Upper level Catholics are petty, political, out for personal gain or power, in league with demons or so burnt out fighting them they are more or less atheistic (God isn't there helping).  Estatics (so?) and visionaries are epileptics or mentally disturbed zealots.  Revering of Saints is used for self promotion and money making and true reverence is hiding their bones in forgotten graves away from any worshippers.

Father Brown mysteries of BBC is a perfect example minus any demons.

Law and Order:

http://observer.com/2016/03/law-order-svu-17x18-recap-all-demons-come-out-to-play/

Havent seen BlueBloods so it may be different.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

I understand what you're saying, but let's be frank: Best Animated Short isn't considered a major category. When it comes to the big five (i.e. best picture, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best actress), Walt was only ever nominated for a single award (Best Director for Marry Poppins)...and he lost. 

And don't let the cartoons that Disney makes fool you. The Walt Disney Corporation has been putting out plenty of films with more...adult fare, for decades - they just don't release those projects under the Disney brand.

So,  for example, when Disney wants to release an R-rated film about a prostitute (i.e., Pretty Woman) it gets produced by Touchstone Pictures instead. Want to put out a Tarantino flick? Hmm...that doesn't seem very Disney. Probably best to just purchase Miramax (run by the Weinsteins) and use that to publish Pulp Fiction instead. Sorry, but the house of mouse has transformed into a major international multimedia corporation, with all the good and bad that that entails. 

 

You didn't like Star Wars? what did Yoda ever do to you?!

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

I understand what you're saying, but let's be frank: Best Animated Short isn't considered a major category. When it comes to the big five (i.e. best picture, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best actress), Walt was only ever nominated for a single award (Best Director for Marry Poppins)...and he lost.

 

Walt Disney didn't direct Mary Poppins.  Robert Stevenson did.  Walt was credited as a producer, so he would have gotten an award if it had won Best Picture (but it lost to My Fair Lady).  And to be fair, studio personnel (and leadership) were given a disproportionate share of the credit when it came to Oscars back in the 30s - 70s.  Walt was given a lot of statues for the studios animation shorts and documentaries, but he wasn't the one writing or directing those films.  Now, the individuals that are more directly involved get the award (for example, John Lasseter, the Walt Disney of Pixar until recently, didn't get all the awards for the Pixar films over the years).

 

 

As for the subject of this thread, I think it highlights two problems with the Mormon approach to media:

1. Vast oversimplification of a very complex art form and industry.

2. A conflation of innocence and comfort with goodness and spirituality.

Orson Scott Card has some interesting thoughts and observations from his experience creating "art" and being in the Mormon culture (and living through the era when a lot of Mormons were almost irrationally fearful of a movie based solely on its rating):

The Problem of Evil in Fiction

Quote

   In January 1977, at a time when I worked as an assistant editor at the Ensign, we ran an article designed to encourage inactive Latter-day Saints to prepare themselves to seal their marriages in the temple. It was a struggle to come up with an eye-catching photograph to lead off the article, but what we decided to do was show an inactive father reading that very article, so that he held a picture of himself holding a picture of himself holding a picture of himself. The only problem was how to show that he was inactive. Since we at the Ensign had not yet earned any fame for our subtlety, we decided on the most obvious symbol--right in the dead center of the picture was an unlighted pipe sitting in an ashtray. If that didn't suggest an inactive Mormon, we would despair of our audience's power of reasoning.

   Alas, we had underestimated the ability of some people to misunderstand. A certain small percentage of our readership wrote letters protesting that illustration. They fell into three categories:

1. "Aha! You thought you could put one over on us, didn't you, running that picture of a pipe in the Ensign, but we caught you!"
2. "We thought there was one place that we could count on never to show evil, but there it was, right where our children could see it, an actual pipe, and in the Ensign, no less, our modern-day scripture?
3. "Don't you people check this stuff before you print it? Right there in the middle of a picture on page 60, there was a pipe! You really ought to screen your pictures more carefully, if mistakes like that are getting through!"

 These few letter-writers had got part of our message--they noticed the pipe, and they knew that for a Latter-day Saint, pipe smoking is evil. What they completely missed was our purpose in showing that evil to attract the attention of people who might have that problem so we could help them solve it.

  Showing evil is not necessarily advocating it.

 

I don't begrudge people (like my sister) who find it easier to just avoid all movies based on a rating (PG-13 and up in her case).  She just doesn't care for movies enough and is bothered enough by even a little swearing or depictions of sex or violence that it isn't worth it for her.  But it becomes problematic when people try and apply their feelings to an entire culture on the assumption that all people are affected by media similarly.

Edited April 28, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

From a Catholic POV:

Quote

Fundamentalist Christians have been almost uniformly portrayed negatively as charlatan preachers, unenlightened dupes, and mean-spirited hypocrites, the only saving grace being their appearance in relatively few films. Mainstream Protestant sects, once prevalent in movies, have virtually disappeared from the screen. Catholics turn out to be the most ubiquitous in film, both favorably early on and disparagingly after 1970. In part, this is due to Roman Catholicism being the largest Christian sect in America, and because of the Church’s role in the strict enforcement of the Hays Code and its adherence to politically incorrect dogma. Anti-Catholicism, which Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. called “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” persists. As Philip Jenkins describes in his 2003 book, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Respectable Prejudice, the animus against the Catholic Church is now most evident in academic circles and those media outlets which seek out dissident Catholics whenever reporting on controversial moral issues.

Ironically, though, many of the contemporary films that ridicule Catholicism most severely have been made by “cradle Catholics” who attended Catholic schools. These directors have either become “fallen-away Catholics” (or “recovering Catholics” as some prefer to be called) or “liberal” Catholics who reject much Catholic dogma. Prominent examples include Robert Altman, who aimed some of his sharpest barbs at Christianity in “M*A*S*H,” and Kevin Smith, who considers himself a devout Catholic while not buying into Church dogma on abortion, homosexuality, etc. His disdain for dogma and the institutional church permeated his 1999 film “Dogma.”

By contrast, the only unalloyed encomia Hollywood has recently bestowed on believers seem to be reserved for those who practice Eastern religions like Buddhism, as in the 1997 films “Kundun” and “Seven Years in Tibet,” or forms of New Age spirituality as in the 1996 film “Phenomenon” and the numerous “angel” films. The major distinction here is that unlike Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, they are more personal in nature and can be embraced without requiring any commitment to specific dogmas, especially those related to sexual and reproductive matters.

Sound familiar?

https://www.catholicleague.org/hollywoods-portrayal-of-religion/

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/08/10/hollywood-catholic-faith-belongs-villains-psychopaths/

Quote

In yesterday’s column I maintained that when it comes to Catholic and Christian characters and imagery in contemporary Hollywood films, the negative side of the ledger is pretty bleak: Catholic or Christian faith and images, including crosses, crucifixes, and rosaries, are often linked to villainous, murderous, depraved characters.

What about the other side of the ledger: positive portrayals of Christian characters and iconography?

For at least the last 15 years, positive depictions tend to be limited to two categories: a) indie and foreign films, i.e., films made outside the Hollywood mainstream; and b) supernatural horror films.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

On the more positive side:

Quote

All of this is a prologue to an interesting development: Catholic priests being portrayed respectfully as confessors in several television series. The shows I am thinking of (which are far from conveying Christian values across the board) generally depict the priests in a positive way, even when those going to Confession do not necessarily accept the advice that is given to them.

Going back a few years to the first one I have in mind involves the wife of Tony Soprano in The Sopranos. Poor woman that she is (with a very bad marriage, to put it mildly), she goes to confession frequently, attends Mass, and encourages her children to do the same.

More recently, the multiple Emmy award-winning popular series Mad Men, which has just completed its long run, features some poignant scenes of spiritual direction by a priest with a woman who has had an abortion but nonetheless finds it difficult to admit it to him. This is particularly remarkable because the series is full of men and women who live only for pleasure and wealth and are constantly breaking their wedding vows. To my knowledge, none of the characters is Catholic except this one.

The final show I draw your attention to is called (of all things) Daredevil! The hero is a lawyer by day and a vigilante by night in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of New York City, where he grew up. Most important, he is a SERIOUS Catholic who confesses his sins and receives spiritual direction from his parish priest.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/06/21/the-sacrament-of-penance-and-hollywood/

http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/hollywood-goes-to-church/

Quote

I do think the anti-Catholic charge is overblown. I think that some people don’t like Catholics, on the right or the left; I’m thinking more news media–wise—editorials that sometimes seem to have a limited understanding of the actual faith. I don’t think it’s a Hollywood thing. People just want to make money. Oooh, those people have exorcists, let’s put that in a movie.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

You didn't like Star Wars?

Oh, I'm a Star Wars fan, but that's a late addition to the Disney empire. When the merger went through I joked to my wife that we would now have yet another Disney Princess to buy for our daughter, but at least this one could handle a blaster. 

 

Quote

what did Yoda ever do to you?!

Not Yoda, Lucas. He's the one who took the wise, old Jedi master we know and love, CGI'ed him up, and then sent him jumping around all over the place like a Muppet on crack in episodes two and three. Bleh. 

 

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

It’s true that a lot of movies contain sex and profanity and violence. I personally have chosen to include less of that sort of stuff in what I write, and I believe that people have every right to avoid entertainment that they find offensive, or that they feel drives away the Spirit. But the fact is those things are in our movies and TV shows because, like it or not, they are a part of life.

Yes.  But I don't see why objecting to content which is "offensive or "drives away the Spirit" (I note that he qualifies this with "they find" and "they feel") is problematic.

I think the qualifying language is present because "offensive[ness]" is, to some degree, subjective. What offends one person and drives the Spirit away, might not affect someone else the same way.

 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think the qualifying language is present because "offensive[ness]" is, to some degree, subjective. What offends one person and drives the Spirit away, might not affect someone else the same way.

I can appreciate that  But Bro. Paul is denigrating the Latter-day Saints and their leaders for being concerned at all with the content coming out of Hollywood.  He's calling us a bunch of rubes, being pushed into a moral panic by a bunch of con artist General Authorities over something that's no big deal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[...] Bro. Paul is denigrating the Latter-day Saints and their leaders for being concerned at all with the content coming out of Hollywood.  He's calling us a bunch of rubes, being pushed into a moral panic by a bunch of con artist General Authorities over something that's no big deal.

I thought the Music Man analogy wasn't entirely apt. However, when he says, "So I say beware of anyone preaching about the evils of Hollywood—they are probably trying to sell you something." I actually thought he was talking about people more generally, rather than the church specifically.

In my whole life, I can only remember two occasions when a Bishop said something about possibly avoiding a movie from the pulpit. Both were PG-13 films which contained nudity that one might reasonably expect to not be present in a film with that rating. But I wonder if Bro. Paul's experience has been different. I haven't bothered to look up where he lives, but if it's in California maybe that's something that gets mentioned more often there. 

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

In my whole life, I can only remember two occasions when a Bishop said something about possibly avoiding a movie from the pulpit. Both were PG-13 films which contained nudity that one might reasonably expect to not be present in a film with that rating. But I wonder if Bro. Paul's experience has been different. I haven't bothered to look up where he lives, but if it's in California maybe that's something that gets mentioned more often there. 

 

Interesting.  I guess your bishop wouldn't be impressed with my encyclopedic knowledge of PG movies that have "reasonably unexpected nudity..."?   (Airplane, Airplane 2, Sixteen Candles, Splash, Clash of the Titans, Amadeus...)

 

But you mean you don't remember when President Hinckley said this in April of 2003?

Quote

It is interesting to observe how the father of lies, that wily son of the morning who was cast out of heaven, always has the means and capacity to entice, to invite, to gather to his ways those who are not strong and alert. Very recently a certain moving picture was acclaimed the best of the year. I have not seen it, nor do I anticipate doing so. But I am told that it is laden with sex, that the use of profanity runs throughout.

"Chicago" had just won the Academy Award for "Best Picture" two weeks before, so it's likely that was the "moving picture" to which he was referring.  I'm not sure if it was the "sex" or "profanity" that offended the person who told him, or this verse in one of the songs....

 

Quote

I met Ezekiel Young from Salt Lake city about two years ago
And he told me he was single
And we hit it off right away
So, we started living together
He'd go to work, he'd come home
I'd fix him a drink, we'd have dinner
And then I found out,
"Single" he told me
Single, my ***
Not only was he married
Oh, no, he had six wives
One of those Mormons, you know
So that night when he came home from work,
I fixed him his drink as usual
You know, some guys just can't hold their arsenic

But it's entirely possible President Hinckley would have been more shocked to find out this "moving picture" was in color, with synchronized sound!*

 

 

 

 

*Yes, I know President Hinckley worked in the media department was very familiar with developments in "moving picture" technology past the 1920s.  It just seemed like an odd phrase to use when speaking about movies in 2003.

Edited April 28, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

22 hours ago, Amulek said:

Focusing on box office numbers is a bit of an evasion, in my opinion. Sure, studios do make films with mass market appeal; I'm not saying those films don't exist. However, when Hollywood gets together to celebrate Hollywood (e.g., the Academy Awards), the films held up for praise and acclaim are almost never these films. The films that the people in the industry think are the 'best' they have to offer are almost invariably laden with content that is not...targeted towards the family audience.  

 

2018  Oscar nominations for best picture

Dunkirk, Story about rescuing English soldiers off the coast of France, PG-13. Received 8 Oscar nominations, including best director and best actor

Darkest Hour, Story about Churchill inspiring England to fight the Germans PG-13. 5 additional Oscar nominations, including Best Actor, which Gary Oldman won

The Post, Story about the Pentagon Papers and exposing government lies.  PG-13. Two Oscar nominations including best actress

Obviously your statement that Hollywood almost never give praise and acclaim to these films is simply not true.  30% of this years best picture Oscar nominations were rated PG-13. Many of these films were also up for other top awards including Best Director, Best Actress,  best actor etc.

 

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Interesting.  I guess your bishop wouldn't be impressed with my encyclopedic knowledge of PG movies that have "reasonably unexpected nudity..."?   (Airplane, Airplane 2, Sixteen Candles, Splash, Clash of the Titans, Amadeus...)

Well, PG used to cover pretty much everything, so that's kind of cheating. With the advent of the PG-13 rating in the early 80's though, all of these start disappearing, and you will be hard pressed to find any nudity in a PG film from 1990 onward.

And it's scarce in PG-13 films as well. So much so that, yes, I think it is reasonable to expect a PG-13 movie to contain no nudity. Sure you can find exceptions (e.g., Titanic) but if you look at the number of PG-13 films with nudity made over the last, say, twenty years, compared with the total number of films with the same rating, I think you'll see that the ratio is vanishing small.

 

Quote

But you mean you don't remember when President Hinckley said this in April of 2003?

Honestly? Nope. 

But I don't think he's wrong to point out that movies laden with sex and profanity aren't exactly 'virtuous, lovely, or of good report,' regardless of how "praiseworthy" they may be in the eyes of the world. 

I remember having a conversation with one of my missionary companions though where he asked if I thought Pres. Hinckley would go see some particular movie. I said that, frankly, I would be surprised if he had time to go see any movies, regardless of their content. Just one more reason why I will never be the prophet, I suppose.

 

[Amulek]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

2018  Oscar nominations for best picture

Dunkirk, Story about rescuing English soldiers off the coast of France, PG-13. Received 8 Oscar nominations, including best director and best actor

Darkest Hour, Story about Churchill inspiring England to fight the Germans PG-13. 5 additional Oscar nominations, including Best Actor, which Gary Oldman won

The Post, Story about the Pentagon Papers and exposing government lies.  PG-13. Two Oscar nominations including best actress

Obviously your statement that Hollywood almost never give praise and acclaim to these films is simply not true.  30% of this years best picture Oscar nominations were rated PG-13. Many of these films were also up for other top awards including Best Director, Best Actress,  best actor etc.

He was talking about how the highest grossing films are targeted to a family audience. Here's a rundown of the highest grossing films for 2017:

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2. Beauty and the Beast  
3. The Fate of the Furious
4. Despicable Me 3    
5. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle    
6. Spider-Man: Homecoming    
7. Wolf Warrior 2   
8. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2    
9. Thor: Ragnarok   
10. Wonder Woman    

How many of these films were nominated for Best Picture? Spoiler alert: zero.

And yes, since the Academy has expanded the number of movies nominated for best picture - something that has only started happening here in the last ten years - it's more common to see PG-13 films make the list. Do you know what's still rare though? Seeing them actually win. The last time a PG-13 film won an award for best picture was in 2011. The farther back you go, the more common you'll find them, but the recent trend is obvious. Just look at this last year (which you have already done); for every Dunkirk, there are two R rated films that are most definitely not 'targeted to a family audience,' as the article states. 

 

[cinepro]

 

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He was talking about how the highest grossing films are targeted to a family audience. Here's a rundown of the highest grossing films for 2017:

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2. Beauty and the Beast  
3. The Fate of the Furious
4. Despicable Me 3    
5. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle    
6. Spider-Man: Homecoming    
7. Wolf Warrior 2   
8. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2    
9. Thor: Ragnarok   
10. Wonder Woman    

How many of these films were nominated for Best Picture? Spoiler alert: zero.

And yes, since the Academy has expanded the number of movies nominated for best picture - something that has only started happening here in the last ten years - it's more common to see PG-13 films make the list. Do you know what's still rare though? Seeing them actually win. The last time a PG-13 film won an award for best picture was in 2011. The farther back you go, the more common you'll find them, but the recent trend is obvious. Just look at this last year (which you have already done); for every Dunkirk, there are two R rated films that are most definitely not 'targeted to a family audience,' as the article states. 

 

 

Setting aside the futility of trying to divine the thoughts of the voting members of the academy, I don't begrudge the voters for not considering any of those films among the best of the year.  Then consider that the average voter is probably more of a cross between your grandpa and the most pretentious "drama" kid you knew in high school, and it's no surprise that they don't see "The Fate of the Furious" as being a top film.  A chase between souped up muscle cars and a Russian submarine might sell tickets, but it doesn't exactly scream for serious award consideration.

Heck, I'm a cinepro, but not a cineaste, and I could only see the slightest possibility of "Thor: Ragnarok" and "Wonder Woman" making the cut, and considering the obvious bias the voters have shown against fantasy, sci-fi, comic book and comedy movies, it's not a surprise they weren't nominated.  I usually only agree that two or three of the nominees should be on the list each year anyway.  The mass of ticket buyers just don't have an interest in seeing really "good" movies, for many different reasons.  Sometimes the stars align and "good" movies become extremely popular as well, but it isn't anything you can hang your hat (or bottom line) on.

Concerning the representation of religion in movies, objectionable content, and popularity, I would suggest looking at the LDS film market (and christian film market in general) as a "control group."  The under performance of many LDS films would suggest that in the end, quality is a huge factor even for LDS, and it takes more than just stringing a story together and keeping devoid of swear words and visible boobies.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

He was talking about how the highest grossing films are targeted to a family audience. Here's a rundown of the highest grossing films for 2017:

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2. Beauty and the Beast  
3. The Fate of the Furious
4. Despicable Me 3    
5. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle    
6. Spider-Man: Homecoming    
7. Wolf Warrior 2   
8. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2    
9. Thor: Ragnarok   
10. Wonder Woman    

How many of these films were nominated for Best Picture? Spoiler alert: zero.

And yes, since the Academy has expanded the number of movies nominated for best picture - something that has only started happening here in the last ten years - it's more common to see PG-13 films make the list. Do you know what's still rare though? Seeing them actually win. The last time a PG-13 film won an award for best picture was in 2011. The farther back you go, the more common you'll find them, but the recent trend is obvious. Just look at this last year (which you have already done); for every Dunkirk, there are two R rated films that are most definitely not 'targeted to a family audience,' as the article states. 

 

There is a huge difference between popcorn movies and artistic movies.  The Oscars are not based on gross receipts.  They are based on artistic merit.  Performances are based on best acting done in a motion picture.  Best acting awards are not based on superhero costumes or bulging muscles.  

Honestly, out of all of those films listed, which ones do you think had artistic merit and why were they better artistically than the movies that were nominated?   

I am a pretty avid movie goer.  I usually go once a week.  Most of the films that you consider great films are tired plots with predictable chase scenes and sequels that usually are not as good as the first installment.  How many of the Best picture Oscar nominations did you see?  I saw every single one.  Some I liked better than others.  The Shape of Water was my favorite.  I loved it actually.  

Edited April 28, 2018 by california boy

[cinepro]

On 4/27/2018 at 10:52 AM, smac97 said:

In short, Bro. Paul is not really playing it straight.  A lot of crap comes out of Hollywood, in addition to some good stuff as well.  Religious people object to the crappy stuff, but Bro. Paul is saying "Look!  Squirrel!" and pointing to the good stuff, and then excusing the crappy stuff with "Yeah, well, art reflects life."

Meh.  People like Bro. Paul insult our intelligence when they suggest that Hollywood is merely reflecting life and society, and not trying to influence and affect it.

He also insults us by comparing us to "the gullible citizens of River City," who were taken in by a scam artist fabricating social outrage about a pool table.

 

The biggest flaw in the article is that he is basing his view of "Hollywood" on his own personal experience.

He has excelled and found great success in a small niche of the industry that is almost totally focused on providing "family" entertainment.  So he was somehow able to write three "Despicable Me" movies without a producer asking him to throw in a few F-words and a sex scene?  Yeah, that's not a huge surprise.

He also acknowledges a second type of movie that presents more complicated and "realistic" stories, and in so doing uses language or presents scenes of sex or violence that convey the story in a way that couldn't be done with less.  Some could argue that the movies would be just as good without the profanity and sex and violence, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that Martin Scorsese and other directors of that caliber know what they're doing, even if they sometimes miss the mark.

But there is an additional and sizable element of Hollywood that knows that for certain segments of the audience, a movie will either be taken more seriously or make more money if there are these additional elements, even if they are totally unnecessary.   We've all seen movies that could have been completely enjoyable as a PG, but included a word or two in a totally unnecessary way that makes it painfully obvious that they were just stretching for a more serious rating.  I cringe when I hear the F-word in "La La Land" not because that word usually makes me cringe in movies, but because it is so out of place it almost screams "this needs to be PG-13 so people don't think it's a kids' movie!"  (Compare that to the director's previous film, "Whiplash" which had torrents of bad language but the language was part of the story.)

And I've heard from some writers I know that it is simply impossible to get a story looked at by Showtime or HBO if the first couple of episodes don't have some nudity or hard-edged stuff.  If you watch their shows regularly, apparently there are some that will include some gratuitous scenes in the first one or two episodes, and then rarely if ever again.  And this trend extends to Netflix and other distribution channels that want to be take "seriously."  I don't watch enough of their shows to cite examples, but if anyone knows of some, please share.

Oh, and another factor isn't that the creators (and financial backers) of these movies and shows are deviously trying to craft harmful media.  The simple fact is, that's how they see the world.  They write dialogue like that because that's how they think people talk.  They include sex scenes because they want to have sex scenes in their movies.  They include profanity because it never occurs to them that someone wouldn't talk like that.  There are lots of people making movies with very different world views. 

So is it fair to fault LDS leaders for advising (warning?) members against seeing movies that contain gratuitous elements?  Probably not.  After all, not every sex scene is there to depict "reality." (When was the last time you saw two fat, ugly people having sex in a movie that wasn't going for laughs?)  Sometimes the sex is there to give the viewers (especially teenage boys) a jolt of dopamine.  Some people start to see swearing as normal (or even admirable) if they're exposed to it a lot.   (No comment about fake violence in movies.)  Sometimes a degree of effort and wisdom is needed to discern which R-rated movies are worth seeing, and the risk of seeing a bad one is greater than the reward of seeing the good ones, so it's easier to just say "Don't watch R-rated movies."

It would also be interesting to see what guidance Bro. Paul gives his children about choosing media. 

 

Also, on an additional note, I would recommend asking any filmmaker (or defender of Hollywood) who makes an appeal to "reality" being a justification for showing sex or including swearing whether they feel that smoking should be included in movies.  We've gotten to the point where smoking has been almost entirely eliminated from movies.  That's probably a good thing from a social engineering and health perspective, but it also seems to suggest that Hollywood knows that what they present in their movies doesn't have to be totally "realistic", and that it can have a very real effect on the behavior of audiences, especially children.

If we could just get "Hollywood" to agree that profanity and gratuitous sex and nudity are as bothersome as seeing someone smoke on screen, that would solve the problem right there.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

The article seems more a saccharine take on Hollywood than a real review.  Do I see an anti-Christian bias?  Hmm, I don't see them going out of their way to directly tear down Christianity, but I have seen a rather persistent, indirect attack on Christian moral standards and teachings.  In both Hollywood and television I see a blatant objective to normalize their sexual social agenda.  

He should take off his rose colored glasses and reassess Hollywood.

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is a huge difference between popcorn movies and artistic movies. The Oscars are not based on gross receipts. [...]

I am aware of this.

 

Quote

Honestly, out of all of those films listed, which ones do you think had artistic merit and why were they better artistically than the movies that were nominated?  

From the list of top grossing films last year? None of them. 

 

Quote

I am a pretty avid movie goer.  I usually go once a week. Most of the films that you consider great films are tired plots with predictable chase scenes and sequels that usually are not as good as the first installment.

I'm a pretty avid movie goer myself, but I haven't said anything in this thread a bout what I consider to be great films. 

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

 In both Hollywood and television I see a blatant objective to normalize their sexual social agenda.  

 

As I said above, a lot of this can be attributed to things just being the worldview of the creators.  For example, LDS films don't necessarily present romantic situations in an attempt to "normalize the LDS sexual social agenda."  It's just the way LDS see the world, so that's what they make movies about.  When LDS see an LDS-produced movie that shows two characters waiting until they get married to have sex, we don't think "Hey, these LDS filmmakers are pushing their sexual social agenda on me!"  Instead, we just recognize that in the LDS world, that's how things hopefully go.

Likewise, some people see pre-marital sex as something that is normal and totally fine (between consenting adults).  So they don't have a problem showing stories where unmarried characters have sex.  It's not because they have a "sexual social agenda."  It's just how they see the world, so that's the world they make stories about.

No nefarious motives or conspiracies needed.

Edited April 28, 2018 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As I said above, a lot of this can be attributed to things just being the worldview of the creators.  For example, LDS films don't necessarily present romantic situations in an attempt to "normalize the LDS sexual social agenda."  It's just the way LDS see the world, so that's what they make movies about.  When LDS see an LDS-produced movie that shows two characters waiting until they get married to have sex, we don't think "Hey, these LDS filmmakers are pushing their sexual social agenda on me!"  Instead, we just recognize that in the LDS world, that's how things hopefully go.

Likewise, some people see pre-marital sex as something that is normal and totally fine (between consenting adults).  So they don't have a problem showing stories where unmarried characters have sex.  It's not because they have a "sexual social agenda."  It's just how they see the world, so that's the world they make stories about.

No nefarious motives or conspiracies needed.

I hope you are correct in your position.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

But it's entirely possible President Hinckley would have been more shocked to find out this "moving picture" was in color, with synchronized sound!*

*Yes, I know President Hinckley worked in the media department was very familiar with developments in "moving picture" technology past the 1920s.  It just seemed like an odd phrase to use when speaking about movies in 2003.

He was born in 1910.  "Movies" didn't become popular usage until more than 15 years later apparently.

Childhood usages pop up a lot in my experience when not really thinking about how one is saying something as opposed to the Why of what one is saying (hope that makes sense).

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=movies&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmovies%3B%2Cc0

(Does anyone say "xerox" for "copy" anymore, it comes out every now and then for me)

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

Here's a contrary point of view from Kevin Sorbo re: Hollywood's generalized treatment of Christians in that industry:

Quote

Sorbo is a Christian and attends a nondenominational church. He believes his religious views have caused Hollywood to limit his career. "There's a negativity towards Christians in Hollywood. And a negativity towards people who believe in God."

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a contrary point of view from Kevin Sorbo re: Hollywood's generalized treatment of Christians in that industry:

Thanks,

-Smac

With all due respect, Sorbo's success is already way out of proportion to his talent as an actor.  And there are so many thousands of talented actors who never reach his level of success, and so many more who never surpass it, that I'm hesitant to give credence to any theories about limitations being imposed because of what he believes.

 

[6EQUJ5]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

But Bro. Paul is denigrating the Latter-day Saints

Your choice of the word "denigrating" is interesting and indicates you are not interested in approaching this discussing in good faith. "Denigrate" is such a nasty word, filled with intent.  

Do you normally respond to a folksy and light-hearted comment with such emotion.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

... and their leaders ...

Why specifically call out Church leadership? Are you somehow placing leaders ahead of members?  That somehow by "denigrating" members AND leaders is worse than "denigrating" members alone.  Again, this is not an indication that you want to move the conversation forward in a positive direction.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

for being concerned at all with the content coming out of Hollywood

No, he didn't.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

He's calling us a bunch of rubes, being pushed into a moral panic by a bunch of con artist General Authorities over something that's no big deal.

Remember how in seminary we learned that not every part of Jesus' parable was a perfect symbol for something else?  You know, to keep the big picture in mind?