If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBOC)   Movie gets PG rating for "being too religious"   (wboc.com) divider line 335
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

24869 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2006 at 12:59 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-09 06:18:15 PM
haha, well without parental guidence little kids might actually believe in that god bs.
 
2006-06-09 06:23:53 PM
oh, this is such bullshiat.

if you hate religion, fine. if you think others are trying to force their religion on you, whatever. but there is no reason to do something this incredibly stupid.
 
2006-06-09 06:24:41 PM
church is far more dangerous than foul language AFAIC.
 
2006-06-09 06:26:02 PM
Churchill2004: So an arbitrary hangup about sex can rate things R, but an active attempt to convert people into a given religion (essentially brainwashing) doesn't even warrant a PG?
 
2006-06-09 06:27:57 PM
Yeah, the filmmaker is SO upset about all the free publicity, too.
 
2006-06-09 06:28:12 PM
Yep, nothing suggestive or naughty in religion. Just ignore the songs of songs.

16. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

Wink, Wink
 
2006-06-09 06:28:58 PM
MisterSpim: (essentially brainwashing)



you're hopeless.
 
2006-06-09 06:30:53 PM
Churchill2004: So targeting children by providing them a story in which the only hope for a football team is God, without allowing them any kind of rational discourse or counterbalance is not an attempt to circumvent logical debate about an issue and merely insert their ideology into the children?
 
2006-06-09 06:32:20 PM
I'm going to have to use that passage on my wife, kabloink? That way she thinks I'm all romantic and shiat just before I ram my cock into her gullet.
 
2006-06-09 06:33:19 PM
Look. There is no invisible man in the sky. Thinking about it critically and logically, you know it to be the truth. He is like the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus in one sense... tales told to reassure explain things to people who can't understand the truth (children or early man). Where did the Earth come from? God. Why do bad things happen to good people? God. Will that evil person ever get his comeuppance? God. How will the world end? God. Will I be rewarded for being a good person? God.

The Old Testiment of the Christian bible is basically a guide for living. It contains some menu suggestions, some nice rules for living as a society, and even some battle stories to give you some idea of attack and defense.

A nice idea, but ultimately still a story, and worth more than a PG.
 
2006-06-09 06:34:03 PM
MisterSpim: So targeting children by providing them a story in which the only hope for a football team is God, without allowing them any kind of rational discourse or counterbalance is not an attempt to circumvent logical debate about an issue and merely insert their ideology into the children?



it's a friggin movie. every movie in the history of mankind that voices anything remotely similiar to an opinion has been one-sided.

nobody's stopping the kids from having any kind of discourse of counterbalance, it's a frigging 2hr movie, after which they go back to the real world where they hear whatever their parents want them to hear, just like with any other movie.
 
2006-06-09 06:34:54 PM
All I see in the article is a statement from the guy who directed and stars in the movie claiming that he "was told" it got a PG rating for being openly religious.

And as a result of his saying that, the movie that he stars in and stands to benefit financially from is mentioned in an AP story and is getting talked about all over the Web, including here on Fark, by people who otherwise wouldn't even ever have heard of the movie.

I don't know whether to call "shenanigans" or "great marketing strategy" on his part.
 
2006-06-09 06:35:44 PM
I'm glad more people are starting to see the religious point of view as what it is. Namely indoctrination.

For too long it was considered the baseline point of view, by which deviant thought was defined.

Furthermore it's only PG, give me a break.
Thanks
 
2006-06-09 06:35:50 PM
Calvin Hobbes: A nice idea, but ultimately still a story, and worth more than a PG.



that's not what's in this movie. it's about a football coach who does better after he gets religious.

people's careers turning around after they get religious is not unheard of, it happens whether you think it's just a psychological thing or not.
 
2006-06-09 06:36:15 PM
Churchill2004: there is no reason to do something this incredibly stupid.

No kidding, brother. It's a film with a $100,000 budget produced, directed by, and starring the Reverend Alex Kendrick and the members of his congregation. That's barely public access television quality. Why would the MPAA even give a crap? Why would this newspaper have written an article about it? Why would anybody go to see it?
 
2006-06-09 06:36:25 PM
Churchill2004: I agree that no one is discouraging the discourse. I don't even agree that this should be rated PG. I think ratings should not exist at all, because they are absurd and draconian. HOWEVER, within the context of rating systems, it is more logical to rate this as "requiring parental guidance" considering that it encourages a specific ideology which might be objectionable to some.
 
2006-06-09 06:36:56 PM
Churchill2004: people's careers turning around after they get religious is not unheard of, it happens whether you think it's just a psychological thing or not.

Sure... I just wanted to get that rant off my chest.
 
2006-06-09 06:37:10 PM
There's nothing asinine about this. The rating is intended to give parents an idea that maybe they should review the content of the movie before they allow their children to view it. A movie that is an overt proponent of a particular religion falls into that category. I fail to see the controversy.
 
2006-06-09 06:38:00 PM
Churchill2004: it's a friggin movie.

I can't wait for Michael Moore to finish shooting Christianity Is Stupid (rated R). I'll refer you back to this thread at that time.
 
2006-06-09 06:38:38 PM
FTA - The Reverend Alex Kendrick, who directed and stars in "Facing the Giants," says it was produced for only 100-thousand dollars by using members of his Georgia church for both cast and crew.

Kendrick says when he sought permission to use a song by the Christian band "Third Day," their record label's parent company, Sony Pictures, asked to see the film and agreed to release it in 400 theaters in late September.

But after the Motion Picture Association of America rated the film, Kendrick says he was told that it got the 'Parental Guidance' rating for being so openly religious. Kendrick says he's never heard of that criteria before and suggests it shows how much times have changed.
They sure have.

Who knew that the Almighty and his own self as Son cared so much about rural school football that they would endorse a movie about a coach who was a loser until he found "Jesus."

If the team had since become an unstoppable, unconquerable force for Lord Jesus Christ Almighty, THEN you've got a movie.
Otherwise, it's a vanity project for a self-absorbed asshole.

The fact that football tends to be a violent game that 12 and under don't fully comprehend wasn't a factor at all.
 
2006-06-09 06:38:46 PM
MisterSpim: requiring parental guidance

Hell, it's not even required... it's only suggested!
 
2006-06-09 06:39:19 PM
Why would the MPAA even give a crap? Why would this newspaper have written an article about it? Why would anybody go to see it?

From TFA: "Kendrick says when he sought permission to use a song by the Christian band "Third Day," their record label's parent company, Sony Pictures, asked to see the film and agreed to release it in 400 theaters in late September."

Most likely, Sony Pictures agreeing to release it in 400 theaters submitted it to the MPAA ratings board so they could slap a rating on it. The MPAA probably doesn't care except that they were asked to rate it.
 
2006-06-09 06:40:00 PM
The MPAA is retarded. This is just another example.

And nobody would have heard of this movie without this publicity. This guy should fellate every MPAA member. Heh, member.
 
2006-06-09 06:41:32 PM
bboy: I can't wait for Michael Moore to finish shooting Christianity Is Stupid (rated R). I'll refer you back to this thread at that time.



well, there is a substantive difference between promoting something and trying to tear down somebody else's beliefs, though that shouldn't get a higher rating either.

michael moore's stuff gets higher ratings because of the profanity he can't resist putting in it, not because of the ideology.
 
2006-06-09 06:44:24 PM
Meanwhile my preschool sexual education film "Daddy puts his penis in other daddy" got a G rating. It's part of my secular homosexual war on christmas.

I'm sure this is a hoax. This is the type of rumor that the GOP releases to get their base all riled up.
 
2006-06-09 06:44:38 PM
Churchill2004: well, there is a substantive difference between promoting something and trying to tear down somebody else's beliefs

No there isn't. Promoting an opinion is promoting an opinion. I assume that when Christianity Is Stupid is released, we'll see you in the threads vocally defending Moore, because...

it's a friggin movie. every movie in the history of mankind that voices anything remotely similiar to an opinion has been one-sided.

nobody's stopping the kids from having any kind of discourse of counterbalance, it's a frigging 2hr movie, after which they go back to the real world where they hear whatever their parents want them to hear, just like with any other movie.
 
2006-06-09 06:48:43 PM
bboy: No there isn't. Promoting an opinion is promoting an opinion. I assume that when Christianity Is Stupid is released, we'll see you in the threads vocally defending Moore, because...


well, in my opinion there is, but it's purely a matter of personal opinion. i also said the movie shouldn't be treated any different because of the opinion it promotes, and none of michael moore's movies have recieved "R"s for gratuitous profanity.
 
2006-06-09 06:49:18 PM
Churchill2004: and none of michael moore's movies have recieved "R"s for gratuitous profanity.



d'oh. change the none to all.
 
2006-06-09 06:54:25 PM
Churchill2004: none of michael moore's movies have recieved "R"s for gratuitous profanity.

Maybe, but to refresh your memory, Fahrenheit 9/11 received a controversial "R" rating mainly because of photographs of dead bodies and stuff that were identical to photographs you might see in Time Magazine or the like.

Refresher: Google search for michael moore fahrenheit "R rating" (pops)
 
2006-06-09 06:59:15 PM
Well, I'd like some warning if I was going to take a kid to see a football movie and it turned out to be evangelical Christian propaganda.
 
2006-06-09 07:04:14 PM
PG = Parental Guidance suggested

To you out there (especially if you are Christian) that are saying that this is ridiculous: Do you think that if there were a movie released that advocated Islam, or Wicca or atheism you might want to know about it, and be advised that you might want to watch it with/before your kids?

That's why it got the PG rating. Not because they hate teh Christians, or because Christianity is teh evil, but simply because some parents might be concerned with the themes of the movie and it the MPAA's duty to tell them as much.
 
2006-06-09 07:08:43 PM
Churchill2004

nobody's stopping the kids from having any kind of discourse of counterbalance, it's a frigging 2hr movie, after which they go back to the real world where they hear whatever their parents want them to hear, just like with any other movie.

Just because you don't see the Christian viewpoint as harmful dosen't mean that it isn't for some people. Religious affiliation is a very important and potentially confusing topic for children and parents deserve at least a heads up if that content will be present.

And a movie recieved a PG rating because a man dropped into frame for a moment, waived and say "Hi, I'm gay," and then was proceded to tell the audience about how he is just like everyone they know, I bet you would be pissed if it got a G rating. It's the same thing.

Besides, when have you ever seen a live-action G rated movie? Even the mild football violence should be enough to rate it PG.
 
2006-06-09 07:11:25 PM
This is what happens when people can't tell the difference between "Freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". One's in the Constitution, the other is an agenda.

I'm not particularly religious, and I'm damn sure not a Christian, but this is just pathetic.
 
2006-06-09 07:17:42 PM
Wraithbane

This is what happens when people can't tell the difference between "Freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". One's in the Constitution, the other is an agenda.

I don't think that's a fair comparison...the Film Ratings Board is a voluntary group that hands out ratings on a largely inconsistent basis that ebbs and flows with the conventional wisdom of the nation. No one is claiming a right from religion...this is just a quick, preliminary heads up to clue parents in to the content of the movie.

If anyone actually wants parents to be surprised that the movie has a religious tone, then they are basically attempting an odd type of "stealth" conversion. That seems rather dishonest to me.
 
2006-06-09 07:17:44 PM
Wraithbane: This is what happens when people can't tell the difference between "Freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". One's in the Constitution, the other is an agenda.

This is what happens when people can't tell the difference between a private company and the Government. One's perfectly able to ignore The Constitution and The Bill of Rights (as it doesn't pertain to them) and one's not.

I'm not particularly religious, and I'm damn sure not a Christian, but this is just pathetic.

I'm not at all religious, and I'm damn sure not a Christian, but this is just a crappy argument.


As I (and many others) have said, it's not because it's religious, it's because it's a theme that some parents might not want their kids exposed to.
 
2006-06-09 07:22:20 PM
I'm not particularly religious, and I'm damn sure not a Christian, but this is just pathetic.

Bullshiat. You love Jesus, don't you? You want to get down on your knees and praise Jesus until he spreads his salvation all over your face, don't you? And don't even get me started on where that cross has been. You don't buy those new pictures of the King of Kings, you go for the old ones where he looks like he could bench press a dump truck!

Say you love Jesus! SAY IT!
 
2006-06-09 07:28:44 PM
vartian
I don't think that's a fair comparison...the Film Ratings Board is a voluntary group that hands out ratings on a largely inconsistent basis that ebbs and flows with the conventional wisdom of the nation. No one is claiming a right from religion...this is just a quick, preliminary heads up to clue parents in to the content of the movie.

Yeah, "conventional wisdom" that evidently now thinks religion is a threat to kids.

If anyone actually wants parents to be surprised that the movie has a religious tone, then they are basically attempting an odd type of "stealth" conversion. That seems rather dishonest to me.

How can parents be surprised, I was unable to find a single reference to this movie that did not EMPHASIZE it's religious overtones. If a parent is so stupid as to totally miss the central thematic point of a movie, they aren't going to be paying attention to it's rating in the first place.

Gecko Gingrich
This is what happens when people can't tell the difference between a private company and the Government. One's perfectly able to ignore The Constitution and The Bill of Rights (as it doesn't pertain to them) and one's not.

Research the origin of the MPAA, it was formed to act in leiu of a governmental organization. If it is going to claim to perform the same function, it needs to operate under the same restrictions. Else it needs to be replaced with an actual governmental organization.

I'm not at all religious, and I'm damn sure not a Christian, but this is just a crappy argument.

You're entitled to your opinion.

As I (and many others) have said, it's not because it's religious, it's because it's a theme that some parents might not want their kids exposed to.

And what theme is that? Oh yeah, religion. Talk about a crappy argument -- "It's not because it's religious, it's because it's....religious!"
 
2006-06-09 07:29:29 PM
Wintermute
Bullshiat. You love Jesus, don't you? You want to get down on your knees and praise Jesus until he spreads his salvation all over your face, don't you? And don't even get me started on where that cross has been. You don't buy those new pictures of the King of Kings, you go for the old ones where he looks like he could bench press a dump truck!

Say you love Jesus! SAY IT!


Didn't you die in a car wreck???
 
2006-06-09 07:38:32 PM
Didn't you die in a car wreck???

I don't know what you're talking about.

*shines his halo*
 
2006-06-09 07:38:37 PM
Wraithbane

Yeah, "conventional wisdom" that evidently now thinks religion is a threat to kids.

Sarcasm is a lazy arguement. However, there is a point there...fine, even if it is only a few percent of the population, I ask again: what is wrong with a quick warning?

How can parents be surprised, I was unable to find a single reference to this movie that did not EMPHASIZE it's religious overtones. If a parent is so stupid as to totally miss the central thematic point of a movie, they aren't going to be paying attention to it's rating in the first place.

That's an assumption and it still dosen't address why you can't allow a simple warning to remain in place.
 
2006-06-09 07:39:43 PM
Wraithbane: How can parents be surprised, I was unable to find a single reference to this movie that did not EMPHASIZE it's religious overtones. If a parent is so stupid as to totally miss the central thematic point of a movie, they aren't going to be paying attention to it's rating in the first place.

And if the MPAA didn't say "Hey, you might want to research this before you let your kids see it," parents might not bother to research it and come across the same info you just found.

Research the origin of the MPAA, it was formed to act in leiu of a governmental organization. If it is going to claim to perform the same function, it needs to operate under the same restrictions. Else it needs to be replaced with an actual governmental organization.

And yet, it's not a Government institution. Also, it's not a de facto one either. The "in lieu of" part come into play, as the Government said, "Either we do it or you do." As Hollywood had no desire to be censored at the whim of the prevailing political party, they said, "OK, we'll do it." This does not make the Government a silent partner with them, quite the opposite actually.

And what theme is that? Oh yeah, religion. Talk about a crappy argument -- "It's not because it's religious, it's because it's....religious!"

You've missed the point. It, in fact *is* because it's religious, but *not* because it's Christian.
 
2006-06-09 07:40:58 PM
kabloink: Just ignore the songs of songs.

I think you mean Song of Solomon
 
2006-06-09 07:43:37 PM
BTW, I know I used "religious" here:


As I (and many others) have said, it's not because it's religious, it's because it's a theme that some parents might not want their kids exposed to.

but, I meant it as "Christianity", as that was the religion on the table.

Here:

You've missed the point. It, in fact *is* because it's religious, but *not* because it's Christian.

I meant "religious" as a more generic term.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
2006-06-09 07:52:53 PM
10 bucks says he made it up.
 
2006-06-09 07:52:57 PM
Perhaps this guy just said he got a PG rating because of the Christian theme. Maybe he really got the PG rating because it's a movie about football and it's potentially too violent for 2-year olds.

Maybe this guys an idiot.
 
2006-06-09 08:00:57 PM
vartian
Sarcasm is a lazy arguement. However, there is a point there...fine, even if it is only a few percent of the population, I ask again: what is wrong with a quick warning?

The idea that it requires a warning is what I find wrong.

That's an assumption and it still dosen't address why you can't allow a simple warning to remain in place.

Because of the implicit assumptions that would accompany a warning...."Hmmm, it has a warning? OMG, there's *gasp* religion in it! They wouldn't warn us if that wasn't a bad thing!"

Yeah, hyperbole, but that's my point.

Gecko Gingrich
And if the MPAA didn't say "Hey, you might want to research this before you let your kids see it," parents might not bother to research it and come across the same info you just found.

So, you know a lot of parent who take their kids to random movies that they have no fricking clue as to what the movie is about?

And yet, it's not a Government institution. Also, it's not a de facto one either. The "in lieu of" part come into play, as the Government said, "Either we do it or you do." As Hollywood had no desire to be censored at the whim of the prevailing political party, they said, "OK, we'll do it." This does not make the Government a silent partner with them, quite the opposite actually.

Exactly, it makes THEM a silent partner with government, as in, we'll take care of it ourselves, so that you don't have to. Which means they need to do it, as if it were the government doing it...

If they don't, then they are NOT taking care of it themselves, and then the government would have grounds to step in.

And what theme is that? Oh yeah, religion. Talk about a
You've missed the point. It, in fact *is* because it's religious, but *not* because it's Christian.
but, I meant it as "Christianity", as that was the religion on the table.
You've missed the point. It, in fact *is* because it's religious, but *not* because it's Christian.
I meant "religious" as a more generic term.
Sorry for the confusion.

Either way, I find it ridiculous. Whether you label it because it has religion, or label it because it has Christianity.
 
2006-06-09 08:03:53 PM
And again, if the movie was about little Jonny Islam praying toward Mecca before his football game and scoring the winning field goal with a little help from Allah, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
 
2006-06-09 08:08:05 PM
Action Replay Nick
And again, if the movie was about little Jonny Islam praying toward Mecca before his football game and scoring the winning field goal with a little help from Allah, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Yeah, because that movie would have gotten a "G" rating. Nobody is too concerned about offending Christians, but a lot of people will bend over backward to avoid offending Muslims.

And before I get blasted for that, please link to the major newspapers that carried the cartoons from not too long ago...if you can find one.
 
2006-06-09 08:16:30 PM
I'd think any overly proselytizing movie should not get a G just because I don't want movies trying to indoctrinate my kid and a PG rating would at least parents a heads up. I imagine, if true, that is why it got a PG, not necessarily because of THE WORLDWIDE ANTI-CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY some people seem to believe in.
 
2006-06-09 08:21:35 PM
Wraithbane: Exactly, it makes THEM a silent partner with government, as in, we'll take care of it ourselves, so that you don't have to. Which means they need to do it, as if it were the government doing it...

I can't argue with your logic. Not, mind you, because it's flawless, rather that you haven't any.


http://www.pluggedinonline.com/video/sortpage.cfm

Here you go, pick a rating from ther list on the bottom left, then pick a movie and try to discern the reason behind it.
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report