Fighting Justice: What do you think of the movies today?

[Hallmark101Narnia]

In the walk with God, all have problems but movies make the problems worse. What do you think of movies and Hollywood? Let us compare and contrast. Let us talk of our true feelings of the real world!

[Hallmark101Narnia]

Who liked 2005 movies? Sick movies? Bad? Horrible? Anti-Christian?

[Hallmark101Narnia]

I have to say: All of them. Not all of the movies were bad, but movies with R rated violance and swearing have to stop. The worst part, over all of that, is the nudity content (sensuality) that ruins the film and lives of many actors and actresses.

[onlymystory]

Double posting is against the rules. Please edit your previous posts if you have something to add.

[LifeMaiden]

In the walk with God, all have problems but movies make the problems worse. What do you think of movies and Hollywood? Let us compare and contrast. Let us talk of our true feelings of the real world!

Well I would say that there had long been a proliferation of very violent movies. Our country seems at odds with topics of sex and violence. In Sweden for example, movies are edited for their content of violence rather than erotic scenes or love scenes. I remember when seeing BRAVEHEART in the theatre, and there was a father and son beside me. The son was about 8 years old, far too young even with a parent in my opinion to be seeing a movie with such gory battle scenes as Braveheart. When the brief love scene ensues between Mel Gibson and Catherine McCormack, the father covered his son's eyes, as if to say that a woman's naked breast was worse than seeing blood, gore, and gaping wounds on a battlefield.


A lot of movies today to me lack good story lines and good acting. I love fantasy movies like Narnia, LOTR and Star Wars as well as foreign films such as Akira Kurosawa's RAN. I also enjoy art house films ( usually also foreign or independent American movies)which deal with real life issues, and not always a happy ending. I don't watch chick flicks...one of the few females I know who don't LOL. I like war movies with drama like Private Ryan, WindTalkers, Full Metal Jacket. But many of today's movies just seem really stupid to me.

Past movie greats are also among my faves, such as Gilda, Mogambo, Gone with the Wind, Jezebel, My Fair Lady, and a Streetcar Named Desire.

[Ephinie]

I don't watch chick flicks, either. I am very much a movie junkie, however.

Movies and television are an amazing invention, and they rival even literature in regard to the widespread impact and power of their messages. That is part of the reason why offensive messages in movies seem so offensive. We have, essentially, an entire generation or two of people who are influenced far more by movies than by any other medium of communication.

As to gore, violence, and sexual content in movies: while movies are rather new, such content is not. Public executions were a form of entertainment from the beginning of any kind of society at all. And, of course, we have the Romans and their games. No matter how graphically violent movies become, I am sure that watching real, live people being brutally killed AND CHEERING FOR IT is much worse than watching it in a movie that we all know is not real. And sexual content in literature is as old as writing itself. Plus, we have paintings depicting sexual acts and nudity as well.

I have found that in a lot of Christian circles, people act as if movies themselves are to blame for questionable content. It is, in some circles, a widely held belief that television and movies contribute to the degredation of society in general. Some people seem to think that the problem is something new and that movies and television are to blame. That is completely false. Objectionable content has been filtered through to every culture that has ever existed, and there were quite a few cultures who had much more of a problem with it than we do nowadays... all on their own, without movies.

Obviously, this in no way excuses objectionable content. It just points out that movies and TV are not to blame. They are just one possible medium through which such things can be spread. Cut out the source of the problem, and the problem will be solved. Cut out the medium, and a new medium for it will be found.

[LifeMaiden]

There's always going to be people who 'blame' tv and movies for society's ills. I'm glad you're not one of them. I'm not sure I'd be able to stomach the torture or execution of someone. It was indeed a form of public entertainment...just look at the movie ELIZABETH for the opening sequence...how many movies open up with a burning at the stake of three people?! And everyone in the audience was staring like they were enraptured.

I don't listen very often to movie critics...if I see a film that I think looks good to me I'll go see it, and then critique it on my own. Some films that got horrible reviews actually ended up being among my favorites :)

[fantastyfreak]

I believe that movies have such stupid plots and bad acing lately. I am a pretty sensetive indivisual. Violence does not get to me much. But sexual content really gets to me. The way romance God envisoned is gone. There goes the beauty. The type of romance which these movies display is bad. I mean all christians and even non has in some sense has to feel a little uncomfortable watching certain stuff on screen. I mean the stuff on Family Guy and South Park almost always make me sick to my stomach. This is all from the words of a male who's not gay but just very religious. When I watch many R rated movies and even some PG-13 I feel very uncomfortable because of the type of sexual material which is contained in the movie. Maybe some can take it but I can not because as a very religius person I feel guilt when watching this stuff. I hope I am not the only male of the age of 16 who feels this way about movies.

[inkspot]

In the walk with God, all have problems but movies make the problems worse. What do you think of movies and Hollywood?
I don't think we can blame Hollywood for the decline in morals or rise in violence, if this is what you have in mind, Hallmark. As IM pointed out, parents sometimes let the little ones see terrific violence on the screen, and really it is parents, not the moviemakers, who are responsible for what goes into the child's head. And of course, we adults are responsible for what goes into ours.

That said, I do think a lot of media -- TV, movies, print, internet, music, et al -- creates a sick atmosphere for our little ones to grow up in. Unless you home school and screen your child's reading and viewing materials very carefully, your child will get a mess of conflicting ideas, but not just from the movies. The books they recommend or require in public school can give a child weird ideas about values, too.

It's like we're fish living in the sea of our environment, and we want to keep our kids eating, breathing and swimming through the healthy stuff, but a pervasive media pollutes nearly all the water. You can't keep it filtered enough without keeping your litte fishie almost entirely cut off from the rest of the school ... :(

[Lawrence]

I love a good movie. Now, what makes a good movie? The ability to transcend this reality for over a hundred minutes, take me to somewhere else and give me characters that I have some empathy for. Few movies do this, unfortunately. LWW was a good one, but they had C.S. Lewis' for a script.

As for sex and violence, it all depends. "A Room With A View" had just a smattering of nudity (unfortunately mostly male) and a good deal of passionate kissing. That's about as far as I like to go with a movie. Not a terribly big fan of the ubiquitous adultery that seems to permeate a lot of movies nor do I like over the top violence a la "Resevoir Dogs". However, there is something beautiful about an Akira Kirosawa sword fight, even if it ends with a beheading. "Kung Fu Hustle" had a ton of violence, but it was so beautifully choreographed and set to music I loved it.
I guess if the sex and violence are done well and contribute to the plot I'm fine with it. However, if it seems like the director just tossed in some gratuitous sex simply for the shock value (think of the upskirt shots on Sharon Stone which is all anyone remembers about that crummy movie she was in), I head for the exits.

As for movies contributing to moral degeneracy one only has to look to ancient Rome or Renaissance France to see examples of some folks who went off the deep end without the benefit of the cinema. In my humble opinion movies reflect culture. We live, sadly, in a culture where casual sex and violence are the coin of the realm.

Pax,
L

[unleavened]

As for movies contributing to moral degeneracy one only has to look to ancient Rome or Renaissance France to see examples of some folks who went off the deep end without the benefit of the cinema. In my humble opinion movies reflect culture. We live, sadly, in a culture where casual sex and violence are the coin of the realm.
This is my stance too.

There are many movies I avoid b/c they are far from edifying. Why should I put those images in to my head?
I think that when watching any movie one should gage the message of the movie carefully. Often I find that even if I enjoy the movie for its characters, witty script, acting, rich sets etc. I can still disagree with the main message. I just make sure that in my mind when I watch a well done or 'good' movie I'm not glorifying something I disagree with simply b/c a movie I like makes it seem good.

Elizabeth is (in my opinion) a good movie to avoid. I watched it (not knowing what I was getting into). If you skip the sex and violance there's not much left. No particularly good acting, plot, or script. The movie feeds on culture's yearning to watch depravity. Such movies are not worth the time or offense to my eyes no matter how much you analyze them. (Again this is my opinion.)

[LifeMaiden]

Elizabeth was not meant to be historically accurate, as most movies in that genre are not. Unfortunately, its violence reflected that day and age. That was a brutal era to live in, and showing it how it really was was the appeal of the movie to me. I didn't need to necessarily see the sex scenes, but sex is part of life, I don't cover my eyes from it. To me that movie was beautifully done, if not historically accurate, and its depictions of violence were the way life was back in the Renaissance.

I heartily disagree with people who claim that movies and television or video games add to the moral degeneracy of this country. We had plenty of that long before the television and the cinema came into play. If you don't like something then don't go and see it. But when people start claiming that movies are the 'cause' of violence in this country or make people do crazy things, then it's time to take a step back and examine what are really the roots of the slack off of morals.

I just remember even at the age of 38, that it was unacceptable in my school or my family to show disrespect to elders, call them by their first names, or be rude. Sometimes I can't help but wonder about the general lack of manners in today's society as well as the lack of respect shown towards elderly people and so forth. Whatever happened to chivalry? Men no longer stand up on a bus to offer a woman their seat. It just kills me.

If someone allows a movie or a rock band song or a tv show to warp them they had to be pretty warped to begin with. Remember the parents who sued Ozzy Osbourne because they thought the song Suicide Solution 'made their kid' commit suicide? Hello, how about the fact that the kid was already messed up to begin with?


I agree with what Inkspot said most of all...why allow your kids to see violent movies? I cannot even begin to understand a parent who takes their young child to see a movie with a lot of violence or sex in it.

[LifeMaiden]

I believe that movies have such stupid plots and bad acing lately. I am a pretty sensetive indivisual. Violence does not get to me much. But sexual content really gets to me. The way romance God envisoned is gone. There goes the beauty. The type of romance which these movies display is bad. I mean all christians and even non has in some sense has to feel a little uncomfortable watching certain stuff on screen. I mean the stuff on Family Guy and South Park almost always make me sick to my stomach. This is all from the words of a male who's not gay but just very religious. When I watch many R rated movies and even some PG-13 I feel very uncomfortable because of the type of sexual material which is contained in the movie. Maybe some can take it but I can not because as a very religius person I feel guilt when watching this stuff. I hope I am not the only male of the age of 16 who feels this way about movies.

I would think that violence would annoy you more than sexual content. I couldn't believe it, for example, when I saw this guy cover his son's eyes in the brief sex scene between Mel Gibson and Catherine McCormack, but he let his son see scenes of gore, violence, ax chopping, arms getting cut off, and that's supposed to be okay for his son to see rather than a beautiful woman's breast?

Movies are meant for entertainment value. They are not meant to be taken seriously. Some things in their content annoy me, but I'm not going to go out there and take them literally or let it contribute to moral 'degeneration' in my own life, thank you.

I actually am glad to see a young man here who can at least be sensitive and sympathetic about the content of movies.

I agree that movies today, for the most part, are lacking in plot, acting, and so forth. In the past, old classics didn't need violence or graphic sex to have a fantastic fan following. Think of the movies with the Hollywood greats like Greta Garbo and Humphrey Bogart, Ava Gardner, Vivien Leigh, and so forth. To me, those were true classics. They don't make movies like that anymore, and most of the actors and actresses today capitalize on what appears to be tabloid stuff and bad acting rather than acting ability itself.

The sad thing is that when movies are garnered as controversial, ( and music too), most people are like, " Wow, then I have to go and see it."

[unleavened]

Don't get me wrong! I'm afraid I've communicated the wrong thing. I certainly enjoy a good movie. I've spent many happy hours enjoying movies.
I do believe what you take in with your eyes effects your actions, so in that respect I am careful about what I watch. But I am one of those weirdos who enjoys analysis too. It's all part of the entertainment for me. Strange, I know.

[LifeMaiden]

Unleavened,

I was going to send you a PM and say that I didn't mean to sound harsh about the Elizabeth movie...everyone has different opinions and I'm afraid I came across a little too strongly with mine.

I think one thing to consider that's very important is...what is fueling the need to push the envelope with movies, video games, and television? No one can deny that through the past decade elements in media have gotten progressively more violent, etc. While I don't believe the media contributes to moral decay ( my general term here) I also believe it doesn't help either. I don't even watch television at home, and I rarely go to theatres. I usually rent DVDs and the programs I watch on tv cable are things like Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, and the History Channel.

Other things that disturb me personally are violent porn and anything degrading to women, and these stupid talk shows where everyone has to reveal things of a crazily personal nature. A lot of that is just for show and aren't even real most of the time, but there's a general lack of informative and engaging talk shows. I don't need to see someone there talking about how she beats up her husband for cheating or whatever. I was at the gym for a few hours training clients and there are several television monitors that were showing these dumb shows. I mean really dumb.

[unleavened]

Unleavened,

I was going to send you a PM and say that I didn't mean to sound harsh about the Elizabeth movie...everyone has different opinions and I'm afraid I came across a little too strongly with mine.
Not at all! I definately see where you are coming from. The person I watched Elizabeth with enjoys historical costuming and she liked the movie from that standpoint.
You have said before you studied history, so obviously historical accuracy matters to you. Don't worry I didn't even blink when I read what you had to say.

[LifeMaiden]

You know what struck me today upon reading several sections on this forum, and from interacting with Christians that I personal train at the gym...one of them is a Pentecostal Minister LOL... ( I am a lapsed Catholic so I can't call myself Christian til my belief in God is once again complete)...I find you guys are the most polite people I've interaction with in a long time.


Gulp...do I hear a call for me to go and try to study the Bible again after 20 years???

[fantastyfreak]

Maybe I should add a little more detail to my post. Well, Ice Maiden you do make some very good points. Sex in itself is not a bad thing at all but when Eve ate that apple. Many confused misconceptions came along and the beauty in romance was just gone. C.S. Lewis in I think Mere Christianity has some great things to say about this topic. But I do think Ice Maiden that you also made an excellent point on the fact many movies now just are not even good. But romance itself should be something more like Romeo and Juliet and Cyrano De Bergerac. These and other great novels are beautiful in the way they concieve romance. With all the bunch of R rated movies and PG-13 movies joking about the sick things about sex and make it seem like if the girl/boy is hot then they should just have sex. C.S. Lewis in his book mentions that like people eat food too much some people rush in and have sex too quickly and treat more like a game then something God created to be something we can enjoy but He also intended it not to be just about that but also to really understand and really get connected with the true one God has intended us to be with but also something to further increase the population. With the great many movies out there making the vision of romance be concieved by people the wrong way. Hollywood still has not stopped making beutiful romantic movies. As a boy, I do not pacticullary like romance movies. But because my uncle told me a movie Pride and Prejudice was good. I sat down and watched it and the whole time I was thinking how beautiful the romance was and how these people were not thinking about looks and about having sex but were actually excitied about falling in love and spending their life together. That something old charm which movies today do not have much of! New World was also another great movie which was just released which also made romance the beautiful thing God intended to be. Sorry for ranting far too long. But yes I of course really enjoy movies but ones which glorify God's conception of romance. Now the violence, What really bugs me about certain films like Bond and MI are that they are pretty stupid movies and pretty lame in the first place. Violence though does get at me since I am a pretty squemish person. My brother showed me a pic from The new The hills have eyes and I puked. But if violence is needed to get a good message out to people like The Passion of the Christ I indeed see violence not as a bad thing. But many violent games like GTA and movies make violence like something like sex in movies become almost fun and some movies are not about doing the world better but many resort to violence in these movies to get money back that was stolen. So for me if the violence is shown not for a good reason then it does really get me. For both things it matters really on the way these things are treated

[Ephinie]

Unleavened, I think one thing to consider that's very important is...what is fueling the need to push the envelope with movies, video games, and television? No one can deny that through the past decade elements in media have gotten progressively more violent, etc. While I don't believe the media contributes to moral decay ( my general term here) I also believe it doesn't help either.That is a very good point. Someone (I can't remember if it was you or inky) already pointed out that movies and media reflect the culture. So I would say that the increasingly objectionable content is a reflection of an increasingly objectionable culture. But that is, undoubtedly, an over simplification. It brings us to, "Okay, so what is causing our culture to go downhill, then?" I have no idea. I don't even watch television at home, and I rarely go to theatres. I usually rent DVDs and the programs I watch on tv cable are things like Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, and the History Channel.The history channel makes my eye twitch. *twitches* Okay, I'll admit, I like it... but it seems A LOT like a historical talk show at times. Also, while there is some very good stuff on there, there are also some things presented that grossly misrepresent historical events. For people who are history majors, that's fine. We've been taught critical analysis, and listening to different views and revisionist opinions is engaging and informative. But what about people who don't know history? And let's face it, the school system these days does not exactly place a high emphasis on studying history. At least, that's how it is in the school district where I live. I know this because the majority of my friends were education majors of some kind, and my university and department are deeply entrenched in the local public education system. There has been a recent trend to move emphasis away from history in favor of more "important" subjects such as math and grammar. Sigh.

Okay, okay... I know. That was a completely random, and rather off topic rant. In conclusion, I have too short of an attention span.Other things that disturb me personally are violent porn and anything degrading to women, and these stupid talk shows where everyone has to reveal things of a crazily personal nature. A lot of that is just for show and aren't even real most of the time, but there's a general lack of informative and engaging talk shows. I don't need to see someone there talking about how she beats up her husband for cheating or whatever. I was at the gym for a few hours training clients and there are several television monitors that were showing these dumb shows. I mean really dumb.OMG! You are so right! Take Jerry Springer for example. Um... does his show even have a point? All they do is fight and yell at each other. Most of the time, the only dialogue they even have is whatever it takes to goad each other into an open fist fight. How is that a "talk" show? It should be called a fight show.

[inkspot]

Okay, I take back everything I said abot not condemning the movies and TV -- because of jerry Springer and Maury Povich! They changed my mind completely, and TV is bad, bad, bad!!! That rubbish is on during the daytime, and I hate to think about little kids whose parents don't monitor what they're watching, seeing and hearing this garbage. Yes, the parents should be looking out for them, but if they aren't, this kind of trash could really have a ruinous effect on a young mind.

Sadly, when you see the people in the audiences of these programs, you know they probably have children, or will soon have them, and their kids will grow up watching this and becoming barbarians. I didn't think about that when I was defending TV.

Of course, it is the responsibility of each adult to protect his own eyes and ears, and of each parent to protect his children, but what about those no one protects? What about children born to children, little ones born to the Springer-watchers of the USA? It's very scary.

[LifeMaiden]

I know that most of the shows if not all, are staged. Remember that Geraldo show where he got hit in the face with a chair when they had white supremacists on there, and his nose got broken? That wasn't staged obviously. And at least the topic at hand that day was something that was controversial in way that was real...white supremacists exist and can be truly terrifying.

That makes it even dumber to me that shows are staged. So now, when I do catch a glimpse of people 'who catch their fiancees cheating and get pregnant from another man and so on and so on...' I just shake my head because it's so comical. And I've watched some very talented talk show hosts who could otherwise have better careers and do more with their journalism...lower themselves and the standards of talk shows by showing nothing but trash. Amazingly these guys like Jerry Springer have reached the pinnacle of notoriety by hosting trash. There's even a Jerry Springer opera that someone wrote about the show itself.

And here's another thing no one ever brings up when all these girls and women are getting pregnant by men they don't even know or can't even remember their names...BIRTH CONTROL, LADIES, USE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!!

[Ephinie]

Okay, I take back everything I said abot not condemning the movies and TV -- because of jerry Springer and Maury Povich! They changed my mind completely, and TV is bad, bad, bad!!! That rubbish is on during the daytime, and I hate to think about little kids whose parents don't monitor what they're watching, seeing and hearing this garbage. Yes, the parents should be looking out for them, but if they aren't, this kind of trash could really have a ruinous effect on a young mind.Maybe that's what happened to me!!!! I should have never watched Jerry Springer when I was little... *sigh*Sadly, when you see the people in the audiences of these programs, you know they probably have children, or will soon have them, and their kids will grow up watching this and becoming barbarians. I didn't think about that when I was defending TV.It IS sad, yes. But don't parents still have the right to say that their children can watch trash? I mean... how far do parental right extend regarding issues like this?

I know that most of the shows if not all, are staged. Remember that Geraldo show where he got hit in the face with a chair when they had white supremacists on there, and his nose got broken? That wasn't staged obviously. And at least the topic at hand that day was something that was controversial in way that was real...white supremacists exist and can be truly terrifying.

That makes it even dumber to me that shows are staged. So now, when I do catch a glimpse of people 'who catch their fiancees cheating and get pregnant from another man and so on and so on...' I just shake my head because it's so comical. And I've watched some very talented talk show hosts who could otherwise have better careers and do more with their journalism...lower themselves and the standards of talk shows by showing nothing but trash. Amazingly these guys like Jerry Springer have reached the pinnacle of notoriety by hosting trash. There's even a Jerry Springer opera that someone wrote about the show itself.

And here's another thing no one ever brings up when all these girls and women are getting pregnant by men they don't even know or can't even remember their names...BIRTH CONTROL, LADIES, USE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!!Like, Jerry Springer used to be involved in politics, news, and other legitimate things. And he left all that for his retarded show! I will never understand it. I can see that he would want to be remembered, but why woudl anyone want to be remembered in THAT context? I mean, if he was already involved in public life, he already had an avenue by which to make a mark. Okay, I guess he wouldn't have had an opera of him made. But still. And there have been episodes of Springer where he brought on white supremicists and stuff like that... and that's even more insulting with the "He slept with my step-father's brother's dog's cousin's son and got my hampster pregnant" garabage. It makes a mockery of a serious issue. And as to those ladies and their birth control... I'll bet at least half of them aren't really pregnant. They're just saying they are to get on the show and help it get ratings.

[Jood]

Not all Hollywood movies are worthless. I you look, you will find. But don't look for them during the Academy Awards ceremony. They never pay attention to good movies that respect God, and Christians. Such as people praying, or true love, or miraculous healing.
A movie of that kind is: Spiderman 1.
No cussing, no nude scenes.
Dissrepect for authority yes, but Peter was later chasened for it.
Good moral: With greater power comes great responsibility.
Sure there was kissing (that could've been left out), but wasn't it practically perfect, for a Hollywood movie?
About Icemaiden and the whole Braveheart thing.
I saw Saving Private Ryan at a young age, very young.
It really affected me, and to this day I hate to watch that movie. But sometimes it's good for children to see that, to know what their Daddy, or brother, or Uncle is going through over in Iraq.
In my opinoin at this age I am, I'd rather see war, then nude. And that's that.
It helped me to watch Band of Brothers recently, to know what Easy Company endured, what they saw, what they lossed, what they gained. Sure they could've taken out some things, but it was an awesome series. I loved it.

[Sunrise]

I actually did a paper in high school on the correlation between media violence and corresponding aggression in children.

I wish I could remember everything I learned there! (Eleven years saps a lot of details).

I do remember that study after study definitely correlated violent television and video games with an increase in aggression. The articles quoting them were always quick to point out the old caveat that "correlation does not equal causation", and that's true, but I wonder if we look at the issue far too simplistically.

It's definitely true that media reflects culture, but it is also undeniable that culture imitates media. The two things feed off of each other. If our society truly were not influenced by media, we wouldn't idolize celebrities the way we do; we'd just let them do their jobs and live their lives like everyone else. Instead we read gossip mags about their latest escapades, mimic their hairstyles, and wish we could meet them. Some of us are delusional enough to fall in love with them. (Not to point fingers at anyone on this board...hee hee.)

Our current society seems stuck in an endless cycle of the law of diminishing returns. We get a thrill out of seeing images our parents would have been disgusted by. Our children will grow up with these things as the norm, and it will take ever-increasing graphicness to create the same thrill for them. It works the same way with a drug addict who keeps having to take more of the drug to get the same high. When I say "thrill" I don't mean necessarily a positive one - there is a difference in one's reaction to seeing a graphic sex scene than a gory slash scene. But the adrenaline rush is the same, and that is what the brain feeds on, whether the experience is perceived as positive or negative. Every experience desensitizes us to the stimulus.

There were some really interesting studies done a couple decades back, in which these very rural areas (I can't remember where - may have been Alaska) had never had television simply because they couldn't pick up signals. When tv finally came to these villages, they DID actually see an increase in aggression in the local kids. And this was years ago, probably when the most violent show on the air was Bonanza.

Can anyone doubt that inner-city kids would be better off if they weren't listening to rap music that glorifies violence against women, vilifies law enforcement, and reinforces the notion that they themselves are downtrodden victims of "the man"? These ideas may be alive and well within their community - but nobody thinks these are GOOD ideas that should be promoted. Yet how can any real, wholesome ideals be implanted in these kids when their pop culture is built around such worldview? They are saturated in it.

Life imitates art imitates life. It's the old chicken-and-egg argument all over, but in this case with real consequences.

[Lawrence]

[QUOTE=IceMaiden]

That makes it even dumber to me that shows are staged. So now, when I do catch a glimpse of people 'who catch their fiancees cheating and get pregnant from another man and so on and so on...' I just shake my head because it's so comical. And I've watched some very talented talk show hosts who could otherwise have better careers and do more with their journalism...lower themselves and the standards of talk shows by showing nothing but trash. Amazingly these guys like Jerry Springer have reached the pinnacle of notoriety by hosting trash. There's even a Jerry Springer opera that someone wrote about the show itself.
/QUOTE]

I look upon Springer, Maury, Nanny 911, Wife Swap and the like as shows people enjoy to watch because it makes them feel better about who they are. Sort of like a 21st century freak show, i.e. when you look at the frogboy with his webbed feet and hands you appreciate your own body more. That being said, no one and I mean no one should watch these shows. They pander to every pernicious stereotype in American society. Everyone on the show is a semi-functional illiterate, has or will have some odd incestuous union, has or will have numerous babies with numerous partners, or at the very least will commit adultery with a close family friend. Yeeech. I also find all of these shows, esp. Springer and Maury, to be quite racist, and this goes for the Spanish language versions as well. More often than not the unfortunate person at center stage is an African American or Mexican of Indian origins who cannot speak properly and engages in some horrific ethical shenanigans. The mostly white audience just laughs and goes away convinced that members of these minorities are insane. I wouldn't watch these shows.

Pax,

L

[LifeMaiden]

Speaking about video games, I remember as a kid when the old Atari games were out like Asteroid, Space Invaders, and Pong. The graphics are laughable by today's standards. :D

I'm not into reality tv shows either. Fear Factor just disgusts me, it isn't about fear more than it is about revulsion. You couldn't pay me enough to eat or do some of the gross things they do on that show. My mom said it should be called GROSS FACTOR.


I just wonder if as a society, since there seems to be this craving and a need for things that push the envelope ( more violence, etc etc) what really might happen in the future. I have this nightmare that is sort of like A ClockWork Orange, where people get de sensitized to graphic violence. We need to bring back the quality of content in movies, tv, and so forth !!

[Lawrence]

Unfortunately, usually prior to a "fall" of a civilization, folks seem to push the envelope simply for the sake of pushing. Rome's orgies got more and more, shall we say, creative, her gladiatorial contests more and more bloody. Late Renaissance France, with Marquis de Sade and friends, sort of the same story. And now we have America with Fear Factor, Extreme Fighting and so called reality shows where men and women express their most purient desires, all of which they have chosen to act upon. It seems when a society is circling the drain, sex and/or violence are taken to extremes. I see little difference between the goings on at Caligula's court and what is displayed in hardcore pornography.

The Visigoths are always at the door.

Pax,
L

[LifeMaiden]

The question is what can we do to keep the Visigoths from breaking down the door?! LOL

[Lawrence]

The question is what can we do to keep the Visigoths from breaking down the door?! LOL

Well, if the Roman Empire is any example, there is always the possibility of a brief respite from those seeking to destroy the empire. Marcus Aurelius was a good example. Eventually, however, empires crumble. Now, the Pax Americana is relatively new, and one would question the use of the word "pax" seeing as we seem to be averaging a war a decade. (40s-WWII, 50s Korea, 60s/70s Nam, 80's-small skirmishes in Central America, 90's Iraq, 00's Iraq II).

Does the permissive moral climate contribute to war or does war lead to a permissive moral climate. Why knows? I will probably go out like St. Augustin, scribbling Latin (or in my case Greek) on my bedroom wall as the outer walls are breached.

Pax,
L

[Narnian_Blade]

Well it actually seems to me as if Hollywood might be taking a turn for the better. Lately, a good storyline has been emphesized more than sex and violence. LLW is one example of that. How many movies have a battle scene with absolutely no blood seen? Then there is also Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Although these are definately not free from violence, these movies are ussually watched because of the awsome storyline, not because they want to see violence or sex.

Coming from a christian perspective, I was really happy when The Passion of the Christ came out. To me, that is a step in the right direction. Also, LotR and Narnia are both series' that were published by christian authors. Did anyone watch The End of the Spear?

It does sadden me when I see sex and violence on screen. The sex is what really bothers me, because that is something I think should be left for the intimacy of marriage. I guess I just don't like to see it treated casually.

So theres my views on movies :)

[Lawrence]

"Coming from a christian perspective, I was really happy when The Passion of the Christ came out. To me, that is a step in the right direction."

Not to pull at the end of this thread and push it in another direction, but, why is gratuitous and overly revelatory sex bad but gratuitous and overly revelatory violence somehow acceptable? If the subject of the scourging was just another Roman criminal ("I'm Spartacus!") would we all suddenly object to the blood, gore and various other bodily fluids that Mel Gibson showed sparing no detail? I am not a fan of either graphic sex or graphic violence, but if I had to choose one over the other, to quote C. S. Lewis, the sins of the flesh seem to me somewhat less serious than inflicting pain on another human against his or her will.

Pax,

L

[Gibby]

Good movies are definately scarce now days. We went to the video store and it was miles of garbage on the shelf. We landed on March of the Penguins which was a refreshingly good flick.

[Narnian_Blade]

In the case of The Passion of the Christ, the violence was not (or should not have been) watched for the purpose of entertainment. Violence is not acceptable. But on the big screen, they are acting violence, not actually doing the violent things. The reason I object to violence in other movies besides The Passion of the Christ is because in that case, it was made for you entertainment. PotC was not. I truely hope that nobody ENJOYED watching that movie, to me, it was a painful reminder of what Christ went through and why he had to do it.

In short, watching violence for entertainment=bad, watching it with reverence for a purpose=good.

[LifeMaiden]

I enjoyed the Passion of Christ because it was so realistic and stylishly done. I loved that it was in the original language Christ spoke, Aramaic, as well as Hebrew and Latin. The violence was not there for entertainment value as it is in other movies, but was there to depict the suffering Christ endured. That scene where he was lashed and beaten in the square was horrible and grotesque to watch. I also enjoyed the fact there were very few well-known actors in it...I had never seen the actor who portrayed Christ in any film before ( at least not where he was recognizable to me)...other than Monica Bellucci who played Mary Magdalene...she was the only one I was familiar with.

I was just at the video store tonight and had picked up, strangely enough, this movie called HISTORY OF VIOLENCE because it had Viggo Mortensen in it, and I like him as an actor, esp as Aragorn in the LOTR trilogy and in CRIMSON TIDE. It was an odd movie.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I totally agree with IceMaiden and Narnian_Blade regarding the place of violence in Passion. It was appropriate to the plot at realistically displayed, which is to say it wasn't scripted and choreographed, but presented as violence actually is: raw, brutal, and nauseating.

Surprisingly, another movie that came close to that was Gladiator. I'd avoided it for a long time, figuring it to be another choreographed bloodfest. Then my daughter and son-in-law recommended it, and I trust their judgement, so I watched it. It was mostly a film about honor, betrayal, and justice, using the gladiatorial arenas of Rome as a backdrop. Though there was some choreographed violence, I thought the director did a superb job of getting across the savage inhumanity of the "games", and how turning sanctioned murder into a spectator sport debased and dehumanized the entire culture.

Particularly effective was the scene where Maximus comes out of the cage to face seven gladiators, all of whom he massacres with almost callous indifference. Then he stands in the middle of the arena, spattered with blood and surrounded by corpses, holding wide his arms and screaming to the crowd, "Are you satisfied? Are you not amused?" They roar with approval, but they're missing his point. He's holding a mirror up to their faces, trying to get them to see the brutal image therein, and they like what they see! Maximus himself was a man of peace, and from the start of the movie to the end you can see that his ideal is to spend his time in peace at his villa with his wife and child. He is no man of blood, but power politics and human weakness put him in the position he finds himself in. Very powerful.

For my part, I echo the sentiments already expressed by many in this thread: violence for entertainment is brutal and dehumanizing. The fact that due to special effects nobody "really dies" in our movies (as opposed to the Roman arenas) doesn't make a difference: we're watching them for the same reason. We're feeding our perverted human appetite for violence and gore. In my own case, I have a weakness for these movies - I remember really enjoying the first Rambo movie - so I have to be especially careful to avoid them. Watching violence for entertainment is not in accord with Tao.

[LifeMaiden]

You read my mind, POTW about Gladiator. One of favorite lines from that movie is " What we do in life, echoes in eternity..."

Here I am suffering from insomnia once again.

[Queen Swanwhite]

I think movies are getting worse....there's another The Omen out soon....stupid really...coming o ut on the 6/6/06.... :rolleyes: No, they're worse...

[Ephinie]

I was just at the video store tonight and had picked up, strangely enough, this movie called HISTORY OF VIOLENCE because it had Viggo Mortensen in it, and I like him as an actor, esp as Aragorn in the LOTR trilogy and in CRIMSON TIDE. It was an odd movie.I saw that movie in theaters with a friend, because he insisted on seeing it. I really did not want to, but I had agreed to the movies with him; so I felt somewhat obligated. Plus, I figured, with Viggo Mortensen in it, how bad could it be? Odd is a very good word to describe it. It was the most disturbing movie I had seen in quite a while. Yet, in spite of being so disturbed, I struggled to find an overlying moral or theme to take away from it. I tend to do this with anything that I take it, because it just seems like we should try to find the good in even the crap that culture presents to us. (Not saying that's a justification for watching just anything... just that if we do happen to see something deeply disturbing, we can still actively try to redeem the experience.) So what I came up with is this:

At first Viggo (can't remember the name of the character he played, so I'll just call him Viggo) had a very bad past and tried to escape from it and make a new life. While this is admirable, it ultimately did not work. His past caught up with him. Our past will always catch up with us if we simply run away from it without properly dealing with it. So when his past caught up with him, he had to pause from his new life and take care of it. In the meantime, his wife and children suffered; and the other people in his town were inconvenienced. So sometimes our past hurts the people around us, even if they were not in our life at the time of the problem we are running from. Also, going back and dealing with it was painful. There was no happy ending. He went home, but everyone was still traumatized from the ordeal. I guess, however, that we can say life went on afterwards, based on the symbolism that he did go home.

Okay, that message is a VERY poor redemption for a movie like that. And it took A LOT of effort for me to pull that out. Needless to say, I would not ever watch that movie again unless there was very good, compelling reason why I should. I doubt there is such a reason, so yeah.

And I also agree with POTW's view of Gladiator. I was seventeen when that movie came out in theaters, and they wouldn't let me in because I had forgotten my ID. They wouldn't believe that I was really seventeen. So... I went out to the parking lot and asked some random adult-looking lady to buy my ticket for me. She did. Then, like an idiot, I forgot my ID another time when I went to see it again. That time I just went home and got it then went back.

[LifeMaiden]

Ephinie that's why I thought it was a disturbing, weird movie. There was just violence begetting violence. Tom Stall, as played by Viggo, kills robbers in self-defense, but then it's revealed he's maimed these gangsters...and so forht and so forth. Ed Harris was especially creepy as the angry vengeful gangster with the messed up eye. And the ending? Forget it...William Hurt was not at his best in this movie.

At least if I was his wife I'd know he could kick some serious butt. I don't know if I'd stay married to someone who lied so badly about their past.


Okay so I know I won't be heading to the theatres on 6/6/2006 LOL

[Ephinie]

His poor wife had it the worst of all, I think. She must have been like, "OMG, I married this psychopath!?" And she already had children with him, so she would have to think of their mental health and well-being. And what if she did want to divorce him? After seeing what he could do... she would have a very compelling reason to be afraid to leave him. He might turn on her or something.

[LifeMaiden]

Remember the scene in the hospital where he talks about his alter ego 'dying in the desert years ago' or something like that? He was so convincing to her that he was now Tom Stall that I almost thought for a second he really was talking about another PERSON rather than himself in the scene. Then Maria Bello his wife goes and throws up. LOL


Other bad movies:


I didn't like Constantine at all, with Keanu Reeves. Except for Tilda Swinton's interesting androgynous angel, that movie's jokes and plot fell flat.

Sin City was strange...I wouldn't say it was bad, but it was definitely out there.

[Ephinie]

Yeah, that part in the hospital made me get the impression that he was suffering from some sort of severe multiple personality psycosis.

I've not seen Constantine or Sin City at all...

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

wowwww....

[ILoveJensenAckles]

ok now a days they are re-making some movies and i do think that the swearing and nudedy in movies are a bit excessive but most movies out there are around to teach us some thing like in the movie Black Hawk Down that movie was about what happened to the US soldiers that were in somalia. when that happened there was only about two days where you saw it on the news and no one really kknew what happened except for the people that were there. my cousin is one of the most patriotic people i know and he had a job to go in with the UN forces to go and save some of the Delta force and the Army rangers that were stucka dn he started crying when he say the movie because he had no idea of how bad it was to the men that were stuck.
other movies that teaches us something are the historical movies like Braveheart, windtalkers, saving private ryan, the thin red line, ect. those movies are gory and have some very disturbing images in them but its to get points across to the public.
also the movies out today are from comic books like X-men, Spiderman, Daredevil, The Punisher, The Hulk all of these movies were verry popular comic books and the movies are being made in respect of the comic book creators and the people that used to read the comic books.
there are ALOT of people on this earth and most of them dont have the same intrests as any other person. Hollywood and movie makers have to take that in to concideration, like if you are a very religous person and you had the oppertunity to make a movie i bet some people would make a movie about there religion. i guess it all depends on your point of view and if your openminded enough to watch ome thing like The Cronicals of Narnia and then watch something like The Cronicals of Ridick, The Punisher or Boondock Saints.

[chuam8919]

Personally, I think movies have both been used as tools for the Devil, as well as tools for the glory of God. We know from 2 Timothy 3 that there will be a steady rate of moral decline as we get closer to the end times. All those violent movies and sex-oriented movies are purposely done so as to appeal to the carnal and fallen nature. Violent movies appeal to some because they represent the fallen nature - to do harm. Sex-oriented movies appeal to the carnal nature in that it stirs up the base feelings.

God has also used the media to His advantage. Because of TV and radio, millions in even not-so-developed countries are able to hear God's message.

It basically boils down to: quick fix or longlasting-but-slow fix? The quick fix appeals to the carnal and fallen nature because it gives pleasure for the instant. God's way of giving pleasure is a healthy one that is not as instantaneous, but it lasts way longer. As ordinary humans, we tend to want things now. Some pursue earthly gain instead of heavenly gain because they want it now.

[LifeMaiden]

Violence or nudity doesn't bother me as long as it's done within a good plot and context of a movie...for example, I think it was in this thread that the PASSION was discussed...I went to see the movie because I enjoy Mel Gibson's directorial style, and I wanted to see the life of Christ through his eyes. The violence in there was graphic and horrifying, but it was to show how much Christ suffered and what he went through, similiarly, with movies such as Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. A person shouldn't go to see a movie because he or she wants to 'see' that violence for the sake of violence, but to get a look into the reality of a situation...such as Christ's barbaric treatment, and the suffering of the soldiers in war.

Nudity is a touchier topic especially here in America. I don't need to see unnecessary nudity or classless porno, but some erotica, or brief scenes such as the scene between Mel Gibson and Catherine McCormack in Braveheart are fine with me. I think a lot of porno is just disgusting and degrading to everyone involved in it.

There's plenty of tasteless movies out there as well as violent VIDEO GAMES as well. Let's not forget some of those crazy video games. I look at that stuff today and I wonder what the heck happened to cute games like PacMan or those old Atari ones like Asteroids!!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

This is a bit of a judgement call, but I hope nobody minds if I shuffle this thread over to the Socratic Club, where it seems to fit better.

I think IM raises several good points. Most of the nudity and sexual presentation in Western entertainment is some variation of pornography (soft or hard). Other times and places have had less trouble with partial nudity as an expression of art (witness the work of some of the Renaissance artist), and when tastefully done, as in Braveheart, it isn't necessarily pornography. However, speaking as a male, I do submit that it's easier for me to keep my thoughts chaste if I'm not being distracted by images of winsome women with little or no clothing, no matter how tasteful the presentation. Something that can be done elegantly with slight nudity can often be done just as elegantly with suggestion and camera angles.

I totally agree with IM's point about violence, and think it just as morally corrosive as pornography, and more dangerous because people aren't on guard for it.

[LifeMaiden]

Unfortunately, the association with 'dirtiness' and 'sex' isn't going to go away. In the movie Braveheart, I saw a young boy sitting next to me with his father. Now, I would NEVER take a 9 year old child to see a movie like BRAVEHEART, and I strongly discourage parents taking very young children to movies even as violent as Lord of the Rings. When I was sitting in the theatre watching Braveheart, the father did not bother to cover his son's eyes when scenes of horrific violence were being shown, and yet, when Catherine McCormack had her brief nude scene, the father covered his son';s eyes. I don't understand that. First of all, the kid should have never BEEN there in that theatre to begin with, and to me, exposure to a little tasteful nudity isn't as bad as seeing someone's head being chopped off and men being killed bloodily on a battlefield.

To me the HINT of nudity is more effective than just blatant nudity. We live in a culture today with tv shows, movies and magazines that push the limits of ' tell all, show all' kind of garbage.

[Parthian King]

I would simply add that, in the ancient church, attending the gladiatorial games or the circus was grounds for excommunication. The reason was self-evident: The entire point of these violent games for the spectators was to identify with the participants--to "be" the gladiator yourself. Not only did they cheapen human life on the sands, but they sullied those who sat in the stands.

One ancient witness describes with horror the destruction of a sincere Christian who reluctantly but foolishly gave way to an invitation to the arena. At first, he shielded his eyes and tuned away. But bit by bit, he was drawn in by the cheers of the crowds, and finally was calling for blows and thrusts like the rest. In the end, he became a regular frequenter of the games. The writer equated this slide into debauchery with a departure from the faith.

My question is, how different are movies today? Just because lives are not literally lost in the sense of blood being shed, does that mean the actors are not degraded by their faux adulteries, blasphemies, and murders? (A brief review of recent tabloid headlnies will reveal that on-screen relationships between actors have "real world" results.) More importantly, are not the viewers degraded and sullied as they were of old through identification with those lechers and murderers on the screen? If identification with those actions isn't the point of the movie, what is? Aren't critics constantly evaluating movies on how well we can identify with the actions and emotions of the characters?

We need to consider the wisdom of our forebears in these matters.

[Siren]

As a parent, and an unconvential one at that, I pick and choose what my daughter sees. She is 7 years old and probably has seen more PG-13 and R rated movies then most 7 year olds.
I have 4 rules:
No nudity on screen, whatsoever!
No sex, whatsoever
No excessive violence
No excessive cursing

And let me explain my wording of these rules:
No nudity on screen. They can imply someone is nude, so long as its not sexual. Watch Disney's Mulan. Its a good example of this rule. It is rated G, and yet contains the nude river scene.
No sex. Implied is fine, but seeing them doing it, nudity or not, no.
No excessive violence/cursing. If its important to the story/characters, then okay. For instance Wolverine's cursing and violence in X-Men movies. If he said "shoot!" it wouldn't be Wolverine. And there is little blood on the movies. He only kills when he is pushed to.

We discuss movies after. Why the characters took certain actions, etc. As a child who was raised on horror and action movies, I'm biased. That's why taking her to see these movies don't bother me. I also view any movie I'm not sure about. For instance, she wanted to see War of the Worlds. I had read the book years ago, didn't know what scenes might be in it. So I watched the movie alone first. And then told her a firm, "No.". Not just because the aliens, that had little to do with it...but because of what Tom's character did to the old man. That scene bothered me in the book and it still turns my stomach now. But the aliens was the other reason. It wasn't so comic-booky like ID4. It was more realistic. More drama. Little humor. She can stick with ID4.
The only R rated movie I can think of that I let her see was Deep Blue Sea.
Most PG-13 and R rated movies she has seen are creature derived horror and action movies. Lake Placid, Godzilla (old and new), Jurassic Park (all 3), Jaws (all of them) Critters, Gremlins, etc. I wouldn't let her see movies that have a human or human-like aggressor. Like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. She loves the direct to video horror junk they make, though most of it, I make her wait till Sci-Fi shows it, because they cut out all the nudity and most of the colorful langauge :)

I never recommend any of the movies I let my daughter see to other parents. Its pointless mostly, because most parents scoff at me about it. But we all have a right to our opinions and what we let our kids watch. She still watches Spongbob and all that junk too. She's still a kid. She's just a kid with an eye for a good creature feature.

[echoscot]

As a parent, and an unconvential one at that, I pick and choose what my daughter sees. She is 7 years old and probably has seen more PG-13 and R rated movies then most 7 year olds.
I have 4 rules:
No nudity on screen, whatsoever!
No sex, whatsoever
No excessive violence
No excessive cursing

And let me explain my wording of these rules:
No nudity on screen. They can imply someone is nude, so long as its not sexual. Watch Disney's Mulan. Its a good example of this rule. It is rated G, and yet contains the nude river scene.
No sex. Implied is fine, but seeing them doing it, nudity or not, no.
No excessive violence/cursing. If its important to the story/characters, then okay. For instance Wolverine's cursing and violence in X-Men movies. If he said "shoot!" it wouldn't be Wolverine. And there is little blood on the movies. He only kills when he is pushed to.

We discuss movies after. Why the characters took certain actions, etc. As a child who was raised on horror and action movies, I'm biased. That's why taking her to see these movies don't bother me. I also view any movie I'm not sure about. For instance, she wanted to see War of the Worlds. I had read the book years ago, didn't know what scenes might be in it. So I watched the movie alone first. And then told her a firm, "No.". Not just because the aliens, that had little to do with it...but because of what Tom's character did to the old man. That scene bothered me in the book and it still turns my stomach now. But the aliens was the other reason. It wasn't so comic-booky like ID4. It was more realistic. More drama. Little humor. She can stick with ID4.
The only R rated movie I can think of that I let her see was Deep Blue Sea.
Most PG-13 and R rated movies she has seen are creature derived horror and action movies. Lake Placid, Godzilla (old and new), Jurassic Park (all 3), Jaws (all of them) Critters, Gremlins, etc. I wouldn't let her see movies that have a human or human-like aggressor. Like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. She loves the direct to video horror junk they make, though most of it, I make her wait till Sci-Fi shows it, because they cut out all the nudity and most of the colorful langauge :)

I never recommend any of the movies I let my daughter see to other parents. Its pointless mostly, because most parents scoff at me about it. But we all have a right to our opinions and what we let our kids watch. She still watches Spongbob and all that junk too. She's still a kid. She's just a kid with an eye for a good creature feature.

It is really good to see a parent show concern for what their children view. Thank you for sharing with us Siren. I think subjectively, we might disagree on the appropriateness of specific films, but overall I just applaud your efforts to screen things for your daughter.

I've seen way too many parents who don't really care at all. It's nice to know that some out there still do. ;)

[Siren]

Thanks, I also use websites like Movie Mom Reviews. She is usually very strict and sensative about some things, but she gives every minor "bad" thing out there to be read, so when I am pretty sure its okay and doesn't need me to pay an extra ticket to see it alone, then I'll rely on her.

I rent a lot too. She'll pick out some movie like Sabretooth or The Cave. I'll watch it while she is at school, a friend's house or asleep. And the next day give her my thumbs up/down on it :) And I'll always tell her why I say no. "Naked people" is all she needs to hear to go "ewwww!" :D

[echoscot]

"Naked people" is all she needs to hear to go "ewwww!" :D

That is great!!!! LOL :p

[Siren]

I'll also tell her if its too violent. She'll whine for a moment and then ask if she can watch it when she's older, I say, "Yeah, when your 18.", and having little concept of how long 10 years is, she's all happy to hear it :D That will only work for so long. But no is no with me. She gets enough things at her age that other kids don't. I let her buy Jaws:Unleashed of PS2, its rated M for violence. The shark decapitates and bites chunks out of people. There is quite a lot of blood in it, but its a big animated shark. I wouldn't let her play Grand Theft. And she has no fear of the water when it comes to sharks because she reads every shark book about how bites are rare. I allow her to view a lot of stuff like this, but she always has two feet in reality.

[Kryptonite]

Well, in answer to that question, I would have to say that the movie business is corrupt. I'm not trying to create a problem here, but the movies now-a-days are no longer focused on just entertainment. They have to throw in some nudity, sexual conduct, etc. I think this just makes people not want to see movies. I am noticing more and more that families don't go out to see movies anymore because of the unecessary inuendo that is stuck in for no particular reason. I know for a fact that the people in Hollywood are selfish people who have never done a hard day's work because they want to see themselves look beautiful to the world. The people of the movies sicken me today. Lousy libs.

[echoscot]

Well, in answer to that question, I would have to say that the movie business is corrupt. I'm not trying to create a problem here, but the movies now-a-days are no longer focused on just entertainment. They have to throw in some nudity, sexual conduct, etc. I think this just makes people not want to see movies. I am noticing more and more that families don't go out to see movies anymore because of the unecessary inuendo that is stuck in for no particular reason. I know for a fact that the people in Hollywood are selfish people who have never done a hard day's work because they want to see themselves look beautiful to the world. The people of the movies sicken me today. Lousy libs.


Well, that was a pretty thorough opinion. Although I think in scale the movies seem worse, but Hollywood has always been a bastion of liberalism. Even if you go back and look at films from the 30's and 40's they pushed the moral edges and boundaries of those days as well.

Although, I wouldn't necessarily attribute rising violence and sex as a reason families don't go out to movies. The video rental industry is thriving and these are all recent releases. I think that a lot of it is attributed to just being easier and more convenient to stay home and watch.

[Siren]

Actually, most families don't go see movies because of the cost. At $8-10 per ticket and then getting popcorn and sodas, a family of four can easily drop $75-100 at a theater.

And to say people in Hollywood don't know what a hard's day work is...you need to understand what Hollywood is. It IS a hard days work. Wasting time (thus money) trying to get the best part, and once they have it, hours in a make-up chair (as someone who's sat hours in a make-up chair, believe me, I rather do hard labor for 10 cents a hour over that experience), remembering lines (harder then you think, especially with a cast and crew of 30-100+ breathing down your neck), working under the hot lights, repeating scenes over and over and over again till the nitpicking director with a hair up his bum decides to yell "thats a wrap", then having to stop between every few hours to get your hair and make-up touched up, let's not forget how they treat actors about their weight. Gain/lose in 30 days or lose the part, huge stress on the body. When the movie is finally done, jet-set across the world to talk about it, sound great huh? Its not. You never get the time to enjoy the sites (and over half these actors who say they did, are usually lieing), because after one show, they have to jump on a plane to go to some other state/country for another show. Some actors with families don't get to see their spouse and kids for weeks to months as they promote it.
And then on top of that, are all the actors who take the time to advocate for good causes. Sigorney Weaver for instance advocates for the victims of the holocaust and gorillas of Rwanda. Alicia Silverstone advocates for animals. Whoopi Goldberg advocates for ADHD patients. The list goes on.

Hollywood will tear your apart, eat your liver, and spit it out. Its not an easy job. It is hard work. Its a jobs millions dream about, and when those few who try it, find out, how un-fun it is. The outcome is worth it to some if they make it. With mansions and dozens of cars, but those are a select few. And they had to worse their behind off to get there. So in a way, they deserve it.

[echoscot]

I'm glad you handled that Siren. Having worked in the entertainment industry myself, I wasn't going to touch that one.

[Siren]

I'm glad you handled that Siren. Having worked in the entertainment industry myself, I wasn't going to touch that one.

No problem :)

[LifeMaiden]

Well, in answer to that question, I would have to say that the movie business is corrupt. I'm not trying to create a problem here, but the movies now-a-days are no longer focused on just entertainment. They have to throw in some nudity, sexual conduct, etc. I think this just makes people not want to see movies. I am noticing more and more that families don't go out to see movies anymore because of the unecessary inuendo that is stuck in for no particular reason. I know for a fact that the people in Hollywood are selfish people who have never done a hard day's work because they want to see themselves look beautiful to the world. The people of the movies sicken me today. Lousy libs.


I think people in Hollywood actually work VERY hard to get where they are, and sometimes along the way, the things they encounter can corrupt them or make them hardened. It's a very cutthroat business as Siren stated. I don't see actors or actresses, producers and directors as lazy. What appears to come easy to them has been the result of many years of hard work.

[LifeMaiden]

I would simply add that, in the ancient church, attending the gladiatorial games or the circus was grounds for excommunication. The reason was self-evident: The entire point of these violent games for the spectators was to identify with the participants--to "be" the gladiator yourself. Not only did they cheapen human life on the sands, but they sullied those who sat in the stands.

One ancient witness describes with horror the destruction of a sincere Christian who reluctantly but foolishly gave way to an invitation to the arena. At first, he shielded his eyes and tuned away. But bit by bit, he was drawn in by the cheers of the crowds, and finally was calling for blows and thrusts like the rest. In the end, he became a regular frequenter of the games. The writer equated this slide into debauchery with a departure from the faith.

My question is, how different are movies today? Just because lives are not literally lost in the sense of blood being shed, does that mean the actors are not degraded by their faux adulteries, blasphemies, and murders? (A brief review of recent tabloid headlnies will reveal that on-screen relationships between actors have "real world" results.) More importantly, are not the viewers degraded and sullied as they were of old through identification with those lechers and murderers on the screen? If identification with those actions isn't the point of the movie, what is? Aren't critics constantly evaluating movies on how well we can identify with the actions and emotions of the characters?

We need to consider the wisdom of our forebears in these matters.



I think movies of the PAST were much better than many present day movies. In the old days of Hollywood, there was a lot less commercialism. Just seeing movie greats like Gone With the Wind, Mogambo, Spartacus, The Snake Pit, Gilda, Wizard of Oz...movies then had real depth and real characters. To me there are very few actors today who can compare to Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, Dorothy LaMarr, and many others of that time period. Those movies almost seem boring by today's standards. And since most people here on this forum are younger they might not remember those movies. But I'm telling you...Jennifer Lopez is NOT Elizabeth Taylor LOL.

[she-elfwarrior19]

I would say the worst is the nudity, foul language, and perverted movies with crude sexualy themed jokes. Those movies I hate like Wedding Crashers( didnt watch the whole thing) and movies like that i just dont enjoy.