Movies you Refuse to see

Danielle Abigail Maxwell · Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:18 pm

It by Stephen King, "The Da Vinci Code" and any James Bond Movie. BORING!!!

Kenric · Post by **Kenric** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:40 pm

Broadcast wrote:Brokeback Mountain

ditto.

Anne Doyle · Post by **Anne Doyle** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:03 pm

I never want to watch horror movies either. Like Saw, anything like that. Just totally desgusting and a lot of the time demonic!

I don't think CHristians should watch that stuff.

Shad Lexer · Post by **Shad Lexer** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:52 am

I refuse to watch Anne of Green Gables.

Post by **Catspaw** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:08 pm

Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!

The third movie takes place during WWII (I think...it's been a while - maybe WWI) and there are some really fake and non-book related war scenes, so you might like it! $\:D/$

But probably not.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:39 pm

Marisol Delko Caine wrote:...and any James Bond Movie. BORING!!!

I refuse to see Catspaw's Adventures in Paris!

Post by **Catspaw** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:48 pm

But Catspaw's Adventures in Paris are so funny and cool and interesting and fascinatingly awesome! $\:D/$ Definitely worth your $29.95 (plus tax). $\:D/$

Shad Lexer · Post by **Shad Lexer** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:33 pm

Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!

Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.

Clodius Albinus · Post by **Clodius Albinus** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:45 pm

Even though I don't watch many movies, I've seen The Da Vinci Code and will probably soon be watching both The Passion of the Christ and An Inconvenient Truth, which will mean three films apparently "boycotted" by individuals here. (I won't be watching any Harry Potter, but I'll note that, while some years back I thought such things terrible, my only objection now is that it all sounds rather silly to me.)

I mainly reply, however, to question the definition of "boycott" used here. Many of you are writing to say that you'll "boycott" movies of which you disapprove or simply dislike. That's not a boycott! It's a private economic decision. When you fail to purchase something, you are not engaging in a de facto boycott.

It's only a boycott if you are refraining from purchasing goods or services you would otherwise like to obtain in order to send a message or force a change in policy. If you refused to watch any films from Studio X because they were going to release a film adaptation of Book Y, that would be a boycott. Merely refusing to go watch that adaptation is not.

Post by **Catspaw** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:48 pm

Shad Lexer wrote:
Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!
Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.

Well, I'll forgive your bad taste, in that case.

Maybe one day you will see the value in watching a movie that is irresistable, despite doing a dreadful job of showing how good the books are by making up an entirely new plotline.

But it seems unlikely.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:09 pm

Looking back, I'd have to chuckle at some of my heated convictions over the evils I perceived in various forms of media. Perceptions change (at least mine seem to!) but in the end, I think it comes down to what Zedekiah said: deciding not to watch a particular film is a personal choice - not a boycott.

Now, lest I obfusicate things even more, let me note that I, like many others, have sat attentively in my pew on Sunday morning to listen to our paster vehemently condemn everything from "Titanic" to "Harry Potter". And I, like many others, took it at face value: We were not to watch these films.

That said, I have (and here I must shudder at the term) "liberalized" my views a bit. You could even say I've reached a stage of contented moderacy. Having been forced, as a casualty of higher education, to watch films that I would rather have not, I have become a great supporter of analytical displacement. Simply taking something for what it is and leaving it at that is enough for me.

So, do I think we are completely unjustified in launching full-scale societal boycotts on certain forms of media? I offer a cautious "no". Perhaps the real question lies with choosing our battles - and it comes down to a question of time, effort, payoff and overall purpose of the endeavor in the first place.

Was this offtopic? If so, I apologize.

jollyholiday · Post by **jollyholiday** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:03 pm

I saw some of it once...but never again.

Spaceballs

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:02 pm

Haha, maturity has a way of catching up with people as they age.

I'd like to commend Shadowpaw, Zedekiah, and Sherlock Holmes on their posts. I, too, have been through a process of learning where I discovered how so much of the reactionary hype in Christian circles should just be avoided. We pick one item and make it some sort or litmus test or end-all battle when in reality, it's a minor point, at best. I, too, used to vigorously argue against this or that as though what I had to say was really important. It's humbling now to look back at such times. Some of my views have changed (making me feel even sillier when I recall what I said to certain people

), some haven't. Either way, I've learned that I can have my opinions but I don't need to walk around wearing them on my sleeve, bashing people who don't agree, or giving special favor to those who do. All three of those things has gotten me in trouble many times and I look back in regret.

There's several movies that I won't watch "on principle" but I'm not going to post them here. It's my own conviction and not something that I need to share with everyone else.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:20 pm

I refuse to watch Wilderness Family, Part 2!!!

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:22 pm

And Top hasn't changed a bit.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:25 pm

I have to, I'm no longer a swinging bachelor!!!

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:26 pm

Good luck.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:49 pm

Chandler wrote:There's several movies that I won't watch "on principle" but I'm not going to post them here. It's my own conviction and not something that I need to share with everyone else.

That's actually a really important point. As Christians, I would hope that we have a pretty good idea of what are "bright-line" rules for types of media we would rather avoid. I was under the impression that this discussion centered around those gray areas of acceptability - those things that we may nitpick or disagree about based on different perceptions or scruples.

Trinarius · Post by **Trinarius** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:08 pm

Shad Lexer wrote:
Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!
Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.

Have you seen the third one that Catspaw was talking about? I must admit it is pretty good. At least, it has a lot more action and much less of the mushy stuff than the other two.

Post by **Catspaw** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:18 pm

Albert Ingalls wrote:
Shad Lexer wrote:
Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!
Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.
Have you seen the third one that Catspaw was talking about? I must admit it is pretty good. At least, it has a lot more action and much less of the mushy stuff than the other two.

It's totally different than the books and the trailer shows that Kevin Sullivan didn't even know what his plotline was even after he had made at least a significant portion of the movie, but Gil is irresistable.

Since that isn't why you like it, I'm sure, it's nice to know that it kind of appeals to people for other reasons. I wish that it was really good, but I really can't say that it is.