|
I don't know why, but I wish that all these fringe causes like pro-life, creationism, rapture-ism, etc, made really good movies instead of movies powered by hatred for Hollywood and duct tape.
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I don't know why, but I wish that all these fringe causes like pro-life, creationism, rapture-ism, etc, made really good movies instead of movies powered by hatred for Hollywood and duct tape. That will never happen because the people making these movies don't give a poo poo. They are in it to make a buck, and making the movies good would cut into their profit margins. Plus, the people who are buying the tickets don't want "good" they want "reinforces my own beliefs" with a side of "sticking it to Hollywood/liberals/atheists."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I wouldn't say those are fringe things in America.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I don't know why, but I wish that all these fringe causes like pro-life, creationism, rapture-ism, etc, made really good movies instead of movies powered by hatred for Hollywood and duct tape. Ambiguity is a sin.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Wouldn't surprise me considering that's how another filmmaker got Robert Loggia to play Satan in a Pro-life movie Or how that weird geo-centrism documentary was made recently.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I liked how their college level biology professor seemed to be trying to put on a Bill Nye style edutainment routine. Maybe at the the end of each of the films (Heaven is For Real, God's Not Dead, Matter of Faith), they can all be recruited into some kind of Christian Avengers team to take on gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Argue posted:I liked how their college level biology professor seemed to be trying to put on a Bill Nye style edutainment routine. No, no, no, we need something more timeless, more applicable, than gay marriage. Atheist Satan Played By Bill Maher, go!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
raditts posted:I thought he was dead for some reason. Of course he's probably going to die soon now, since that seems to always happen within a few weeks of whenever I look up an actor and think "Huh, I didn't know he/she was still alive." Sorry guys Nope: he's still kicking and working a lot. He was in a sci-fi channel original movie last year.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
God's Not Dead was disappointing. They needed to cut 20 minutes out of the movie but it was worth seeing for Kevin Sorbo's hilarious comeuppance and the celebration of it. Sorbo was outstanding as Professor Atheist and the Christian characters weren't in his league. The Duck Dynasty guy's cameo showed more charisma than the bland everyman we're supposed to root for. My favorite reasonable character was the protagonist's girlfriend who saw the professor's challenge as an insane stunt and wanted nothing to do with it. I can't hate a movie with a character repeatedly calling bullshit on its premise.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Wouldn't surprise me considering that's how another filmmaker got Robert Loggia to play Satan in a Pro-life movie The Life Zone is amazing. It ends with Satan being pro-life and an eternity of pregnancy being Hell and the disparity between what they're trying to say and what they're actually saying is baffling.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:41
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Just wanted to add some stuff and ask some questions..... When it first came out my family (stupidly naive, Methodist pastors, from suburbs of upstate NY, so pretty bad, though I give my mom credit for letting us have a tv at all and getting a little better compared to her "playing cards are the devils tool" upbringing) We did not watch it, it was considered to be making light of the bible, my mom has stated she now regrets skipping the rape/murder bits when we were kids... But after a couple years it seemed to suddenly be ok. Actually the timing matched the release of the first Harry Potter book, I could see veggie tales taking root strongly as a counter to witch craft.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
sethsez posted:The Life Zone is amazing. It ends with Satan being pro-life and an eternity of pregnancy being Hell and the disparity between what they're trying to say and what they're actually saying is baffling. This sounds loving hilarious, I don't think an intentional satire could be more contradictory.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
The guy who produced The Life Zone is Kenneth del Vecchio, who left his position as a judge to produce weird films. He wrote and starred in O.B.A.M. Nude, which is a hitpiece on Obama and features del Vecchio in as the Obama stand in (del Vecchio is white) Weirdly enough, he's also produced a pro-gay marriage film, An Affirmative Act.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Has there ever been any films based on Historical Jesus? Paul Verhoeven has been trying to make one for years, but it looks doubtful that it will ever happen now.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Historical in what way? I mean, in terms of actual history, there's not really too much concrete to go on. In terms of Biblical, there's a bunch of options, but I don't know if that's what you're looking for. Pretty much, it's going to be very hard to do a good historical Jesus film without it being boring or just running into roadblocks. Probably the best I can think of is The Life of Brian. I'm not kidding. There's a lot about that movie that's more accurate to how things were in Israel at that time than what most people believe. Like, the scene with all the messiahs preaching and all that. It's true. There were literally lots of messiahs running around because people thought that a messiah would come at that time. And crucifixion wasn't just something that happened to Jesus (a lot of people actually believe this). I mean, yes, there are inaccuracies, like I doubt anyone was doing a song and dance routine up on the cross, but overall, it is a look at that time period.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:And crucifixion wasn't just something that happened to Jesus (a lot of people actually believe this). Hell, a lot of people forget that there were two other guys being crucified with Christ that very same day, let alone that it was a fairly regular Roman execution practice. But yes, if you thought Aronofsky's Noah stirred up some reactionary poo poo, just imagine a "non-religious Jesus" movie even being rumored in production. (Not that a historical/docudrama take would excise all religious considerations, of course that would be impossible, but that's how the radical knee-jerk reactions would go.) McSpanky fucked around with this message at 03:17 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that Jesus Christ Superstar stirred up a lot of poo poo because the movie didn't portray the resurrection, instead skipping directly from the crucifixion to the movie's framing bookend of passion players packing up their props and leaving, during which Ted Neeley (Jesus) is noticeably absent.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I remember reading somewhere that Jesus Christ Superstar stirred up a lot of poo poo because the movie didn't portray the resurrection, instead skipping directly from the crucifixion to the movie's framing bookend of passion players packing up their props and leaving, during which Ted Neeley (Jesus) is noticeably absent. Is that different from the actual musical? I've only ever seen the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Has there ever been any films based on Historical Jesus? Paul Verhoeven has been trying to make one for years, but it looks doubtful that it will ever happen now. There was Jesus of Montreal, which is about a team of actors setting up a Passion Play where they make multiple references to historical research on Jesus, and all the controversy that generates, among other things.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Has there ever been any films based on Historical Jesus? Paul Verhoeven has been trying to make one for years, but it looks doubtful that it will ever happen now. The 1961 King of Kings spends a lot of time examining the political situation of the time. It highlights the tensions between the Roman occupants and the Jewish resistance movement in Jerusalem and shows how Jesus' teachings affected both. However, I don't know how much of it is based on actual historical research and how much is simply conjecture. raditts posted:Is that different from the actual musical? I've only ever seen the movie. The musical doesn't have the framing device of travelling performers, but otherwise it ends in exactly the same way. Leaving out the resurrection makes sense thematically, since Jesus Christ Superstar approaches the Gospel story from a mostly secular perspective. It's more concerned with the human side of Jesus, his fears and doubts, than it is with his spiritual message. We never see him perform any miracles on-screen either.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
I never really understood why we don't see more Ben-Hur type movies; epics (or other historical-type flicks) that take place in Biblical times and may make reference to Biblical events but are not taken directly from the Bible or other religious texts themselves. I think there's a lot of potential there to appeal to Christian folks and others in the mainstream with much less risk of offending anybody, and it's not like Ben-Hur isn't one of the biggest hit movies of all time or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Even with direct Bible references, The Prince of Egypt was pretty good, although not live-action.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I never really understood why we don't see more Ben-Hur type movies; epics (or other historical-type flicks) that take place in Biblical times and may make reference to Biblical events but are not taken directly from the Bible or other religious texts themselves. It makes sense but one of the big things among evangelicals is that they will actively look for things to be offended about. Making movies about the Bible is even worse because they will find something that contradicts what they think the Bible is about and complain about that. If it doesn't validate their faith, then they will likely treat it as an example of "liberal Hollywood" corrupting the youth and the like. Of course, this mentally isn't the most consistent, since it produces movie concepts like "Satan is pro-life."
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I never really understood why we don't see more Ben-Hur type movies; epics (or other historical-type flicks) that take place in Biblical times and may make reference to Biblical events but are not taken directly from the Bible or other religious texts themselves. Cleopatra bombing basically killed off that entire genre until Gladiator came around. There's a shitton of movies like that from around Ben-Hur's time, though. I'm partial to Barabbas.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
My grandma apparently liked Heaven is for Real. I was tempted to bring up some stuff about how they were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the whole thing being a scam, but being a dick on Mothers Day seemed wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I've seen Jesus Christ Superstar do the resurrection on stage before, at the end, when they performed Superstar. It's a pretty good compromise because for Christians you can have your resurrection, but for everyone else you get Judas basically heckling the resurrected Jesus, but he's ok cause he's resurrected. It changes the tone a lot, but it actually works really well. Also Robocop is the best movie about the historical Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
raditts posted:Even with direct Bible references, The Prince of Egypt was pretty good, although not live-action. The thing about The Prince of Egypt, though, is that in order to get as good as it is, it needs to completely abandon the tone and structure of the Exodus story. The filmmakers cop to this at the opening of the film with the opening disclaimer, but I'll bold the crucial portion: The Prince of Egypt posted:The motion picture you are about to see is an adaptation of the Exodus story. Anybody who has read the book of Exodus is any truly critical respect knows that this it utter horse hockey. It's not just that The Prince of Egypt is clearly a remake of The Ten Commandments and features numerous visual cues taken straight from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, something that The Road to El Dorado also reflected. There's a clear calculation in every detail of embellishment that goes on in The Prince of Egypt. First and foremost is the decision to frame the beginning of the story not with a narrator describing how, previously, the Hebrews prospered in Egypt under Joseph, and how, in the hundred-years generations timeline of Biblical scripture--since it is a historical myth--and how it is only the new pharaoh "who did not know Joseph." [The version of the Bible I am referring to is The Oxford Study Bible] (Exodus 1:1-22). Rather, "Deliver Us" situates the spectator in media res with all references to expanded lifespans completely excised, as well as any context for how the Hebrews came to dwell in Egypt and then be enslaved. The result is evocatively timeless (and, of course, it's also a transparent rip-off of the opening of Les Miserables), where the Exodus story fixes with story directly within an expanded Hebrew-Israelite-Jewish historical tradition. "Deliver Us" also features distinctly Christian allusions to "send a shepherd to shepherd us," and while Moses is at one point a shepherd, it'll become clear how deliberate these Christian metaphors are. In essence, the producers took a unique ancient monolatrist document and re-appropriated it in a secular, spiritually pluralistic ideal. The focus is clearly on the subjectivity of the Israelites -- oppressed and suffering -- versus the Egyptians -- decadent and apathetic -- creating a modern parable of persecution, whereas the Bible is notoriously uninterested in subjectivity, with Biblical authors only very rarely characterizing them through means other than direct action (considered historically relevant) and speech, which, again, is frequently indistinguishable between characters. By the end of "Deliver Us," the scene has been set: Moses, the Hebrew raised as an Egyptian, must face the traumatic realization of his complicity in ignorance and hegemonic oppression. This is primarily achieved through a fittingly musical motif, the lullaby that his mother sings him before sending him off -- again, that emphasis on subjective emotion rather than the historical action itself. This also plays the role of significantly expanding the roles of women within the Exodus story, where the text is predictably phallocentric. The thing is, however, in the Exodus story, there is no indication that Moses does not realize he is a Hebrew. In fact, it's quite obvious from the context of the story that he is aware, as his murder of the Egyptian is followed directly by an episode in which he attempts to stop two Hebrews from quarreling, and they rebuke him as a murderer. He clearly identifies with them as part of his race. And as opposed to Ramses making an impassioned plea for him to stay in Egypt, in the Bible, Moses runs out of the city knowing that pharaoh will have him put to death. (Exodus 2:11-15) This is because, in the text, Moses's relationship with the dynasty is only ever tangentially explained, and this explanation is clearly just a set up for advancing the narrative: Pharaoh's daughter finds him, identifies him as a Hebrew, and, then, his older sister comes out from the reeds and returns Moses to his mother to be breastfeed, clearly symbolic of Moses being safely nurtured on the milk of his people. From what little subjective vantage is given, the Biblical authors seemed to clearly be writing an episode not of sorrow and separation, but of clever subterfuge, the Hebrews consciously sewing the seeds of their own redemption, and with Moses operating less as a pretty boy fallen and more as a scoundrel and scourge who is chosen by god to foretell his wrath. Then again, this is also where The Prince of Egypt, as a contemporary film, deviates so dramatically from the text, in its very conception of God. As nice as it might be to imagine that we have a more ambiguous and complex understanding of God than ancient peoples, they actually possessed a very frank and sobering conception of the almighty, and it's encapsulated in many episodes throughout the Old Testament in which his 'evil spirits' come upon certain people, such as the first King Samuel and the judge Samson. Death and wrath are both immutable aspects of God's divine might, and while it's now totally superfluous to note what a deliberate spectacle God makes of his freeing of the Hebrews -- something played up in the animated musical almost as a matter of course -- but as a historical myth, this conception of God is actually central for understanding the so-called "essence" of the story. This is about the redemption of monolatry over the myriad polytheistic cultures that oppressed the Hebrews, then Israelites, then Jews through the spectacle of cataclysmic violence. This is the definition of might makes right. But in The Prince of Egypt the narrative embellishment and emphasis on subjectivity works in such a way that one clearly identifies Ramses as the victim of his own hubris, with Moses literally telling him that he brings the death of his son upon himself. But the Bible is far darker in its portrayal of God's will: "Tell Aaron all I command you to say, and he will tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave his country. But I shall make him stubborn, and though I show sign after sign and portent after portent in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you" (Exodus 7:2-3). One begins to see why the apocryphal Epicurean riddle became so popular as a means of criticizing him; there was no contradiction between God's rightness and his omnipotence before The Prince of Egypt and its unique secular context created it with its only passively belligerent God. In the Bible, God takes accountability for what he causes, and this is the whole point of the story. The Exodus story, while consistently appropriated in such a fashion, is not a moral parable against slavery -- if it is, the self-represented historical legacy of the Hebrews should clearly inspire chagrin -- but a historical myth that is meant to call attention to God's awesome power and, thus, the uniqueness of the Jewish people in being a part of his chosen covenants, despite their frequent floundering and betrayal. The problem with a lot of contemporary criticism of religious film is that it usually focus on the intolerance evident in stuff like God Is Not Dead and A Matter of Faith but doesn't substantiate this with a critical understanding of the history of spiritual morality and historical myth-making. I didn't note the specific version of the Bible I was using for shits and giggles -- there are so many different variations of the 'Good Book' that it would make your head spin, and yet contemporary critics, journalists, pundits, and cultural commentators still seem to see the conflict as being fundamentally between binary oppositions of religious conservatism and secular liberalism, when really both frequently predicate their political ideologies on reductive and uneducated generalizations (and outright ignorance of) the Bible. Hollywood, for its part, makes emotionally manipulative and narratively embellished stuff like The Prince of Egypt pretty regularly, but the hypocritical reverence for 'traditional' Judeo-Christian values is hardwired into its titillation of sex and violence. Moses, here, is not a dirty, mush-mouthed old man who becomes the unlikely scourge of the those who dared to betray the Hebrews, but a handsome, young leading man who looks distinctly like many depictions of Jesus Christ. A motion picture with meticulous detail and reference to the Bible would actually be far more challenging than most contemporary spectators, and even supposedly knowledgeable critics and journalists, could accept given how trivialized the so-called "essence" of the scripture has become. But The Prince of Egypt can't be said to be objectively better than, say, Jesus Camp, because what it represents is an equal and opposite work of blatant textual and ideological manipulation and direct misinformation. The movie is not true to the text, and yet the filmmakers feel confident that all the decisions that they made has not made something challengingly unique. This can only be the world where we're liberal enough to know that we shouldn't hurt other people, but we're not interested enough to read up on whether or not our favorite book actually supports our ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:I've seen Jesus Christ Superstar do the resurrection on stage before, at the end, when they performed Superstar. It's a pretty good compromise because for Christians you can have your resurrection, but for everyone else you get Judas basically heckling the resurrected Jesus, but he's ok cause he's resurrected. It changes the tone a lot, but it actually works really well. I've seen Superstar a couple of times performed live, because I love that show, and I can't remember the resurrection being involved. Granted it's been a few years, but yeah, I seem to remember it ending with the crucifixion, and then I think one version had some of the apostles recite lines from the bible about the resurrection (they opened the show the same way but more of a setting up the story way) and the other production just sorta lowered the lights and that was it. If I remember correctly, and my memory on the history of the show is a bit hazy, but it was released as a concept album because Weber was convinced that there was no way he could get away with actually getting the show on stage, what with the suggestions of romance from Mary Magdalene, Jesus being portrayed as *Gasp* a human being, etc. Of course it was eventually staged and became a hit. The 1973 film version is easily my favorite version, but they did a really interesting version of it in 2012 as an arena tour where it's framed as being sort of modern with Jesus and the apostles being Occupiers. It's a hell of a lot better than the one from 2000 that's for sure. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2596918/?ref_=nv_sr_2
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
raditts posted:Even with direct Bible references, The Prince of Egypt was pretty good, although not live-action. A lot of that is being hugely critical of the Christian perception of God by humanizing Pharaoh so much, and making him such a product of his environment that you can't help but criticize how God handled things. The Exodus story does it in a different way, because the Jewish concept of God is far more dickish than the Christian concept. But that would make a terrible movie, so making a tragedy about the situations people are born in works well.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:10
|
|
joylessdivision posted:I've seen Superstar a couple of times performed live, because I love that show, and I can't remember the resurrection being involved. Granted it's been a few years, but yeah, I seem to remember it ending with the crucifixion, and then I think one version had some of the apostles recite lines from the bible about the resurrection (they opened the show the same way but more of a setting up the story way) and the other production just sorta lowered the lights and that was it. Jesus Christ Superstar is interesting because while it was originally intended to be about Jesus the Man, it had been embraced by large sections of the Christian community. When it first came out there were protests against it, but now most stage productions include the Resurrection. The big Broadway revivals are generally more true to the original intended spirit of the performance, though Tim Minchin as Judas is a little too on-the-nose for my taste. Also there is no Resurrection in the 1973 film but there is a shot of the cross in the setting sun while a bedouin shepherd and his flock wander into the frame. A happy accident according to the director but certainly an ambiguous-enough closing shot to satisfy almost everyone.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I never really understood why we don't see more Ben-Hur type movies; epics (or other historical-type flicks) that take place in Biblical times and may make reference to Biblical events but are not taken directly from the Bible or other religious texts themselves. A remake of Remember Me but the final reveal is that the film takes place in Gomorrah.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I never really understood why we don't see more Ben-Hur type movies; epics (or other historical-type flicks) that take place in Biblical times and may make reference to Biblical events but are not taken directly from the Bible or other religious texts themselves. This seems about as good a time as any to mention Trey Parker's pilot for "Time Warped," a musical historical comedy program, which features the story of Moses from the perspective of his much more talented older brother Aaron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIhvVbiPzCk
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
For all Parker and Stone's faults, I really enjoy it when they take on religion. They're knowledgeable enough about it (and, surprisingly, level-headed enough about it) that they can take the piss out of it without sounding like Reddit atheists, which is a surprisingly rare thing nowadays. e: hell, the fact alone that the Mormon episode of South Park has the message of "their beliefs are kinda out-there but they're overall pretty harmless and nice people" is noteworthy, given that nine times out of ten when somebody makes fun of Mormons it's just "gently caress Mormons, Joseph Smith was a con artist, faaaart." SALT CURES HAM fucked around with this message at 06:13 on May 15, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:For all Parker and Stone's faults, I really enjoy it when they take on religion. They're knowledgeable enough about it (and, surprisingly, level-headed enough about it) that they can take the piss out of it without sounding like Reddit atheists, which is a surprisingly rare thing nowadays. I've actually seen and heard a bunch of people claim that South Park has gotten more vicious and mean spirited in the last couple seasons. Don't know if it's true though, havem't watched it in a while, but I heard the transgendered episode wasn't very nuanced at all.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:I've actually seen and heard a bunch of people claim that South Park has gotten more vicious and mean spirited in the last couple seasons. Don't know if it's true though, havem't watched it in a while, but I heard the transgendered episode wasn't very nuanced at all. They haven't gotten more mean-spirited, just less funny. And in regards to how they usually engage religion, it's interesting that, basically, this all comes down to how South Park handles "the social lie." They do everything in their power to point up the hypocrisy, contradiction, and ridiculousness of religious dogma, but their conclusion is virtually always the Tertullian one: "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" or "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd." And, the thing you'll notice, is that Trey Parker and Matt Stone, with their limited budget, actually manage to pull off a more faithful adaptation of the Exodus story, as well as a better musical, because they are more interested in directly engaging the mystery of God rather than distilling him into a safely commoditized version for children. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 14:51 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Book of Mormon does the best job at making their overall point, which is basically "all this religious stuff is ridiculous, but as long as people don't take it seriously and use the good parts as allegory to give them hope/not be a dick, it's cool."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:For all Parker and Stone's faults, I really enjoy it when they take on religion. They're knowledgeable enough about it (and, surprisingly, level-headed enough about it) that they can take the piss out of it without sounding like Reddit atheists, which is a surprisingly rare thing nowadays. Seriously? You're talking about the same mormon episode that had a song throughout where half the words were "dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb"?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
raditts posted:Seriously? You're talking about the same mormon episode that had a song throughout where half the words were "dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb"? That doesn't go against what he said. The episode wasn't JUST about Mormons being terrible idiots because of Joseph Smith. It was, "this religion is based on the dumbest beliefs ever since it's close enough in history that we can verify how dumb they are, but some Mormons themselves are cool and kind of realize this, and you can come off worse than them by being a dick."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
raditts posted:Seriously? You're talking about the same mormon episode that had a song throughout where half the words were "dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb"? South Park making fun of religion reminds of Stone's quote about how "I hate conservatives, but I really loving hate liberals" regarding their political satire; they'll tear apart Scientology and Islam but play softball with Christianity and try and pass it off as making fun of everybody equally.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:South Park making fun of religion reminds of Stone's quote about how "I hate conservatives, but I really loving hate liberals" regarding their political satire; they'll tear apart Scientology and Islam but play softball with Christianity and try and pass it off as making fun of everybody equally. Protestant Christianity to be precise. I don't think there's an episode with an anti-Protestant bias similar to the Catholic Church deciding how to cover up raping boys better.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 18:12
|
|
