Fundamentalist critique and rejection of religious movies

[lamar1234]

I've seen, heard and read fundamentalists reject every religiously-themed movie, book, play, video for a host of reasons.

Ken Ham, for instance, hosted a round-table discussion on 'Noah.' He and his staff mocked the Russell Crowe vehicle for its 'inaccuracies.'

They rejected depictions of stone giants as outlandish.

What irony.

They described depictions of motivations as unsound. 'Noah was just an environmentalist trying to protect the world from man? Oh come on!'

Let me be clear. In a free and open society a person or group is free to criticize any depiction of anything for any reason they choose. This does not, though, equate to 'All criticisms are equally valid.'

No one here who was not on that panel is accountable for those men's opinions, but the notion of rejecting a movie because it ascribes a motive to a character's actions seems rather dicey to me.

Perhaps it is those men's intimate understanding of the Book of Genesis that informs their opinions. Why, though, are criticisms based on the variance of the depiction in 'Noah,' for instance, to their own interpretation of Genesis valid?

Is it valid to describe fundamentalist rejections of so many different forms of media as the credulous' predilection or preference or stance being one of "reject first"?

[Wootah]

Ask any fan of a genre how they feel when the movies wreck it.

We all want the source material protected.

Did you enjoy the movie Noah?

[sf]

Noah was a great movie for being action packed and not boring. What wasn't good is that it pretended to be telling a well known story, but it changed most of the story to do so. Therefore, I was not pleased at all

[Hamsaka]

The biblical narrative of Noah was MORE fantastical than the movie ever could have been. An invisible (and typically unavailable) Supreme Being to start with . . . a whole-earth flood, 40 days and nights, islands popping up with fully formed olive branches to be picked by a dove . . .

The movie (which I recently watched for the first time) was typical Russel Crowe, but he's a darn good story teller. It is laughable, literally bust-a-gut laughable, that Biblical conservatives got together and had a FORUM to criticize the liberties Crowe took with the liberties taken by the ancient scribe recording a mythic tale. Only Ken Ham would feel no shame.

[help3434]

[Replying to Hamsaka]

Russel Crow didn't write Noah, or any other movie for that matter.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Hamsaka]

Did anyone here disagree with God in the movie Noah?

[Dropship]

The 1969 TV film "Son of Man" was quite good because it portrayed Jesus as just an ordinary man who realises with shock and horror that he really is the son of God even though he never asked for the job.
Here he stares down Pilate-



FULL FILM-

[Dropship]

Did anyone here disagree with God in the movie Noah?

What did God say in it? I haven't seen it yet, I'll wait til it comes to TV.

[shnarkle]

I've seen, heard and read fundamentalists reject every religiously-themed movie, book, play, video for a host of reasons.

Ken Ham, for instance, hosted a round-table discussion on 'Noah.' He and his staff mocked the Russell Crowe vehicle for its 'inaccuracies.'

They rejected depictions of stone giants as outlandish.

What irony.

They described depictions of motivations as unsound. 'Noah was just an environmentalist trying to protect the world from man? Oh come on!'

Let me be clear. In a free and open society a person or group is free to criticize any depiction of anything for any reason they choose. This does not, though, equate to 'All criticisms are equally valid.'

No one here who was not on that panel is accountable for those men's opinions, but the notion of rejecting a movie because it ascribes a motive to a character's actions seems rather dicey to me.

Perhaps it is those men's intimate understanding of the Book of Genesis that informs their opinions. Why, though, are criticisms based on the variance of the depiction in 'Noah,' for instance, to their own interpretation of Genesis valid?

Is it valid to describe fundamentalist rejections of so many different forms of media as the credulous' predilection or preference or stance being one of "reject first"?

People disagree with the text itself so the fact that someone made it into a movie presenting their own perspective makes little difference. When someone presents their perspective through a movie, I tend to look at things like production value, dialogue, actors that tend to get better movie roles, etc.

The thing which I found interesting is a theme that is only alluded to in the biblical text, but explicitly presented in other extra-biblical texts, i.e. Ham's indiscretion with his own mother. Actually, for those who are biblically literate, the bible explicitly points out Ham's indiscretion. The movie built up the premise of this theme with Ham's search for a wife. Noah is responsible for thwarting Ham's search and this seems to be a factor in what follows. Those who made this movie stopped short of showing what Ham actually did. Why they felt this was something to leave out may be because they are aiming at a Christian audience.

[nobspeople]

I've seen, heard and read fundamentalists reject every religiously-themed movie, book, play, video for a host of reasons.

Ken Ham, for instance, hosted a round-table discussion on 'Noah.' He and his staff mocked the Russell Crowe vehicle for its 'inaccuracies.'

They rejected depictions of stone giants as outlandish.

What irony.

They described depictions of motivations as unsound. 'Noah was just an environmentalist trying to protect the world from man? Oh come on!'

Let me be clear. In a free and open society a person or group is free to criticize any depiction of anything for any reason they choose. This does not, though, equate to 'All criticisms are equally valid.'

No one here who was not on that panel is accountable for those men's opinions, but the notion of rejecting a movie because it ascribes a motive to a character's actions seems rather dicey to me.

Perhaps it is those men's intimate understanding of the Book of Genesis that informs their opinions. Why, though, are criticisms based on the variance of the depiction in 'Noah,' for instance, to their own interpretation of Genesis valid?

Is it valid to describe fundamentalist rejections of so many different forms of media as the credulous' predilection or preference or stance being one of "reject first"?

The last 'religious movie' I watched was the animated PRINCE OF EGYPT and it was quite good. Not for the accuracies (or inaccuracies) or story or story telling, but the manner in which it was produced and animated. I actually had the VHS tape (that's how long ago I watched it)
That said, I actively stay away from Christian movies and stories these days.