Movies you Refuse to see
It's PRINCIPLE!
- Danielle Abigail Maxwell
- Odyssey Book Author
- Posts: 7111
- Joined: January 2006
- Location: Denver, CO
- Contact:
-
- Green is good
- Posts: 194
- Joined: December 2005
- Location: Doyle Manor, Odyssey
- Shad Lexer
- Ignorance of the law is no excuse
- Posts: 4032
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Right where I'm supposed to be.
- The Top Crusader
- Hammer Bro
- Posts: 22646
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side
Marisol Delko Caine wrote:...and any James Bond Movie. BORING!!!
I refuse to see Catspaw's Adventures in Paris!
- Shad Lexer
- Ignorance of the law is no excuse
- Posts: 4032
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Right where I'm supposed to be.
- Clodius Albinus
- Smile for the camera
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Blackacre
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.
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.
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
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.Shad Lexer wrote:Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!
But it seems unlikely.
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.
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.
-
- I'm a teapot
- Posts: 433
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: The Village
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
- Hammer Bro
- Posts: 22646
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side
I refuse to watch Wilderness Family, Part 2!!!
- The Top Crusader
- Hammer Bro
- Posts: 22646
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side
I have to, I'm no longer a swinging bachelor!!!
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.
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.Shad Lexer wrote:Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!
-Josh
Trinarius is back. Kind of.
Trinarius is back. Kind of.
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.Albert Ingalls wrote: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.Shad Lexer wrote:Oh no, I have seen them. I refuse to watch them ever again.Catspaw wrote:Shad, you fool! You're missing out on the experience of a lifetime!