Christian groups slam new Kidman children's movie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Even so – this does make me wonder why those people think its their job to provide the “heads up”.

[Peikko 1,575]

I still don't get it. If the film is unecessarily violent, then it's not a kids film and a parent can make that decision but the subject matter points fingers at organised religion at least that appears to be the objection. I still fail to see why that requires a blanket 'don't watch this film!!!!' Isn't it more an opporunity to tell kids 'well, their are people who think this way but...' insert a good reason why organised religion is good for the kid?

....

I don't normally give the Church the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see this as them saying the film and the books are a threat to their existence. I honestly interpret this as merely a heads-up to say it may deal with issues that young children may not to be able to grasp yet. The film is going to be hugely marketed and will probably reach a larger audience than the books did the first time around. (Watch the re-issues with "Now a major motion picture" blazoned on the front hit your bookstore soon.)

Edited December 6, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[SteveLaura 0]

I still don't get it. If the film is unecessarily violent, then it's not a kids film and a parent can make that decision but the subject matter points fingers at organised religion at least that appears to be the objection. I still fail to see why that requires a blanket 'don't watch this film!!!!' Isn't it more an opporunity to tell kids 'well, their are people who think this way but...' insert a good reason why organised religion is good for the kid?

Sure. Absolutely no one tells me what film I can or cannot see. I don't know whether any church has called for it to be banned, or to picket where it's showing, but I would be against that 100%. I think some parents may use it to discuss religion further with their kids, like you suggest. And if so, why would be a bad idea to know in advance that these discussions may come up?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see that it makes any difference one way or another. Ultimately, if this is a film that is going to get kids talking/thinking about topics that are important (not sure if this is true by the way, they may just watch it/read the books and think no more about it) then that's a good thing. How the parent responds will be dependant on which way the parent leans as regards the subject matter.

However, those who do object to the film are seemingly asking people not to watch the film (or shock horror, read the books which are of course infinitely worse, allegedly) at all. That seems just ridculous to me. It's not harmful to be exposed to counterarguments, if anything, it can strengthen your opinion.

I am also curious, how if a parent is sat watching the film with the kid, how they can be hoodwinked into buying the three books without having any idea that they might contain some controversial (depending on your point of view) material?

[Emancipation 2]

MTV Interview with Chris Weitz -Director of the film..

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/14/golde...estions-part-i/

And

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/21/golde...stions-part-ii/

[JenAlex 0]

I enjoyed the books. My hubby and I can't wait to see the movie. I just think that telling people that the movie or books will turn their kids into atheist is a bit of an overkill. If a movie turns someone into an atheist, well I don't believe their faith could have been that strong. I don't belong to a secular religion but I do believe in God. Reading the books didn't change that.

BTW, if you hear any rumors about female genital mutiliation in the books it's completely FALSE. I had a girl on another board go off about the movie and that part of the books. She'd never read the books and was going by what 'she heard'. I've read them so I do know what I am talking about.

[golias 0]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

I don't know what he meant, but Southern Baptists (for one) tend to get more into the fire and damnation of the Old Testament rather than the salvation of the New Testament.

[golias 0]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

I don't know what he meant, but Southern Baptists (for one) tend to get more into the fire and damnation of the Old Testament rather than the salvation of the New Testament.

Hmm well . . . I'm not Jewish, but . . . I can safely assert that the Jewish religion has no belief in hell, or, by extension the "fire and eternal damnation" that are a uniquely Christian interpretation of some of the Old Testament. Hell and eternal damnation (the concepts of, etc.), as it turns out, entered religious belief through the New Testament. Those things have nothing whatever to do with Judiaism. Who knew? lol

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

I don't know what he meant, but Southern Baptists (for one) tend to get more into the fire and damnation of the Old Testament rather than the salvation of the New Testament.

Hmm well . . . I'm not Jewish, but . . . I can safely assert that the Jewish religion has no belief in hell, or, by extension the "fire and eternal damnation" that are a uniquely Christian interpretation of some of the Old Testament. Hell and eternal damnation (the concepts of, etc.), as it turns out, entered religious belief through the New Testament. Those things have nothing whatever to do with Judiaism. Who knew? lol

I'm godless, so I don't have a dog (kind of ironic) in this fight.

[golias 0]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

I don't know what he meant, but Southern Baptists (for one) tend to get more into the fire and damnation of the Old Testament rather than the salvation of the New Testament.

Hmm well . . . I'm not Jewish, but . . . I can safely assert that the Jewish religion has no belief in hell, or, by extension the "fire and eternal damnation" that are a uniquely Christian interpretation of some of the Old Testament. Hell and eternal damnation (the concepts of, etc.), as it turns out, entered religious belief through the New Testament. Those things have nothing whatever to do with Judiaism. Who knew? lol

I'm godless, so I don't have a dog (kind of ironic) in this fight.

Hahaha. I waver back and forth myself. I'm currently of the opinion that the god most people worship is themselves. Since I try very hard not to be one of them, maybe I'm godless too? The mind reels . . .

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just hoping that my Jewish bros can be accurately represented.

[golias 0]

Even so – this does make me wonder why those people think its their job to provide the “heads up”.

Because we're unable to think for ourselves, of course. The stubborn use our god-given intelligence has led us to a state of blind sin. We should therefore trust in their superior ability to decide for us what's good for us. Kinda the way the Democratic Party operates <ducks>.

Religion and politics in one thread. Awesome!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some branches of the Christian religion, specifically in the United States, owe more to Old Testament Judaism than New Testament Christianity.

Not overly in the mood for a theological debate, but I'm curious as to what you mean by this observation.

I don't know what he meant, but Southern Baptists (for one) tend to get more into the fire and damnation of the Old Testament rather than the salvation of the New Testament.

That's actually what I meant.

[chri'stina 190]

So, the fictional books are anti organised religion, so what? If the organised religion can rebutt the ideas in the book/film, what have they go to be scared about? How does it threaten them?

For films or books aimed at adults (Da Vinci Code, for example), a heads-up is unnecessary & pretty stupid - and probably counter-productive. (I was swept up & went to see the Dav Vinci Code, never having read the book. I hope the book was better cos the film was #######.)

I don't normally give the Church the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see this as them saying the film and the books are a threat to their existence. I honestly interpret this as merely a heads-up to say it may deal with issues that young children may not to be able to grasp yet. The film is going to be hugely marketed and will probably reach a larger audience than the books did the first time around. (Watch the re-issues with "Now a major motion picture" blazoned on the front hit your bookstore soon.)

I saw the actor who plays the cowboy on TV today(The View lol) and he said it's not actually a "kids' movie".

But still it is being advertised as so, and I agree with your interpretation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Still - isn't this why we have age-certifications that explicitly state that it may contain sexual, violent or other "adult" content?