Christianity and pop culture/movies

Terrlock

I reckon there is more behind blaspheming Christ then is let on.

if you take all the TV series and movies that blaspheme his name.

Nothing is written into a script that is not intentional and there is a huge amount of shows that you can see are deliberating using it to mock the christian beliefs and to mock Christ and God.

Sure it's ingrained in everyone minds and I get that in most people they don't even notice or take any meaning from it.

However the media are playing a big part in keeping it a large part of our language in the Western World.


How many movies that have come out in the last while, especially the super hero movies that just take stories from the bible, twist them around often reversing the real meaning, and use it as the plot. I reckon most people probably don't even see that.

pauldla

Terrlock wrote: »

....

How many movies that have come out in the last while, especially the super hero movies that just take stories from the bible, twist them around often reversing the real meaning, and use it as the plot. I reckon most people probably don't even see that.

That's an interesting observation. Can you give some examples, please?

Geniass

Terrlock wrote: »

How many movies that have come out in the last while, especially the super hero movies that just take stories from the bible, twist them around often reversing the real meaning, and use it as the plot. I reckon most people probably don't even see that.

Of course the stories in the bible are recycled and changed. Quite a few of them in the bible are themselves recycled from earlier myths, such as the flood (btw, were you happy with the Russel Crowe movie?).

But, I think you're seeing a conspiracy theory where none exists thinking blaspheme is being deliberately inserted by the media. It's just a reflection of the world in general.

There is arguably less influence in the media now from religion than ever before, simply because religion is of less importance in the real world (particularly The West).

Terrlock

pauldla wrote: »

That's an interesting observation. Can you give some examples, please?

Sure,

take the age of Ultron...there was so much taken out of the bible in that movie you could hardly go through a scene without something being quoted...usually in the inverse context.

In fact there was so much of the story from the bible you could do a 2 hour bible study on it.

Here is a blog that highlights some of them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/watchinggod/2015/05/age-of-ultron-may-be-the-most-spiritual-superhero-movie-yet/

Terrlock

Geniass wrote: »

Of course the stories in the bible are recycled and changed. Quite a few of them in the bible are themselves recycled from earlier myths, such as the flood (btw, were you happy with the Russel Crowe movie?).

But, I think you're seeing a conspiracy theory where none exists thinking blaspheme is being deliberately inserted by the media. It's just a reflection of the world in general.

There is arguably less influence in the media now from religion than ever before, simply because religion is of less importance in the real world (particularly The West).

I stopped watching the Russel Crowe Movie less the half way through.

I probably got too far at that.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that I'm getting at...it's quite common that the media is used to influence people.

I would say quite the opposite, religion is still a major influence in the media...especially Antichrist type stories.

homer911

Geniass wrote: »

There is arguably less influence in the media now from religion than ever before, simply because religion is of less importance in the real world (particularly The West).

Have you heard of ISIS?

Geniass

homer911 wrote: »

Have you heard of ISIS?

Do you know where ISIS is based - have they made many blockbusters lately?

Geniass

Terrlock wrote: »

I stopped watching the Russel Crowe Movie less the half way through.

I probably got too far at that.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that I'm getting at...it's quite common that the media is used to influence people.

I would say quite the opposite, religion is still a major influence in the media...especially Antichrist type stories.

Out of interest what was wrong with the RC movie in particular. Apart from being a terrible movie in general.

The bible has had huge influence on western thinking and it's not surprising themes are borrowed from it. It would be strange in the extreme if it were not. But it's not alone.

Look at the likes of the work of William Shakespeare...
http://screenrant.com/movies-based-on-shakespeare-plays/

Likewise, ancient Greek and Roman culture is heavily drawn upon.

It's not done out of malice, more like laziness. Or maybe every good idea has already been thought of.

And as I've said, the Bible is not without blame here. Paging Mr Gilgamesh's lawyers.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Giving this it own thread as it seem worthy of its own thread

oldrnwisr

Terrlock wrote: »

Sure,

take the age of Ultron...there was so much taken out of the bible in that movie you could hardly go through a scene without something being quoted...usually in the inverse context.

In fact there was so much of the story from the bible you could do a 2 hour bible study on it.

Here is a blog that highlights some of them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/watchinggod/2015/05/age-of-ultron-may-be-the-most-spiritual-superhero-movie-yet/

You see the problem here is that Christian writers such as Paul Asay in the blog you linked to make the same mistake that Joseph Atwill does in Caesar's Messiah: Just because you can see parallels between two stories doesn't mean that the author intended them to be there.

In fact, Atwill's work is a very good analogy for the blog post above since Atwill's thesis is formed by constructing parallels between Jospehus' The Jewish War and the gospels. However, Atwill's thesis fails because although his scholarship of Josephus and the Flavians is commendable, his research of the NT is poor leading to a meaningless comparison.
Similarly, the blog post above is written by an author who is clearly knowledgeable about the Bible but is clueless about the wider mythology on which Age of Ultron is based.

Ultron first appears in Avengers #54 and although he has had a number of creators over the years through various retcons, he was first created by Hank Pym, a character who has yet to make an appearance in the MCU. Pym creates Ultron and uses his own brain patterns as the basis for Ultron's AI. The problem with Ultron though lies in Pym's own mental instability. He has borderline schizophrenia which presents as a conflict between his innate pacifism and his desire to establish order in society. Because Ultron's AI is based on such a fragile mind, it rapidly grows out of control. So when the blog author says:

"Ultron wants to remake life into something closer to his own image."

he is seeing biblical parallels without acknowledging the forty year character history of Ultron.

There is always a degree of fan-service in MCU movies but they are constrained within the current narrative framework of the MCU. So, Vision in as much as the author sees him as a messianic figure, is really just a character written into the story for fan-service but retconned to fit with the current MCU narrative. Vision was originally a synthetic human built by Ultron to do his bidding to be in Ultron's words: "my perfect vision of destruction". Originally Vision was solar-powered with a solar jewel on his brow which allowed him to both absorb solar energy and also to release concentrated blasts of IR and microwave radiation from it. However, the presence of the jewel now is a convenient way to tie Age of Ultron in to the established Thanos/Infinity Stones narrative which started in the Avengers and was expanded upon in Guardians of the Galaxy. So when the blog author says:

"In the context of the story, Vision is saying that he is conscious. He is alive. But it’s also an explicit allusion to God’s own statement of “I AM” in the burning bush. We’re given another godlike being with a penchant for biblical asides—only this one comes to save, not kill. He is, in a way, a New Testament savior pitted against a wrathful, Old Testament-like god—an intercessor to stave off Ultron’s ultra-doom.

he is again wide of the mark.

The Christian parallels in Ultron stem from treating the movie as a standalone work which it isn't. There is a rich comic book history as well as a cinematic network to explore in analysing the themes of Marvel movies and blog authors would do well to educate themselves before claiming such tenuous parallels.

ScumLord

You're just promoting a false view of reality.

Terrlock wrote: »

How many movies that have come out in the last while, especially the super hero movies that just take stories from the bible, twist them around often reversing the real meaning, and use it as the plot. I reckon most people probably don't even see that.

People could make the same argument about the bible. Many of the stories in it seem to come from earlier cultures and symbolism. Plenty of stories from the old testament can be linked to other societies that predate Judaism.

homer911

Geniass wrote: »

Do you know where ISIS is based - have they made many blockbusters lately?

Reread your post - you said "media". Last time I checked, TV and Internet were also "media"

Not a NSA agent

What you have discovered is very few people have a completely original idea, they might no be copying it on purpose but you could get 2 films being made that turn out to have similar themes. You can pick any 2 films and probably find something they have in common. There's a guy on youtube which gets 2 films and describes the plots of them both in a manner to make them look the same.

Geniass wrote: »

Do you know where ISIS is based - have they made many blockbusters lately?

Michael Bay can direct it. Lots of explosions then.

smacl

Terrlock wrote: »

How many movies that have come out in the last while, especially the super hero movies that just take stories from the bible, twist them around often reversing the real meaning, and use it as the plot.

Among my personal favourites would have to be

Life Of Brian
Dogma
Southpark the Movie

or is humour exempt? Obviously those behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks didn't think so, but I would have thought most Christians would be rather less extreme. So far as I'm aware, a fair bit os C.S. Lewis fiction also borrows heavily from Christian mythology, but would that make it blasphemous?

ScumLord

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

What you have discovered is very few people have a completely original idea, they might no be copying it on purpose but you could get 2 films being made that turn out to have similar themes. You can pick any 2 films and probably find something they have in common. There's a guy on youtube which gets 2 films and describes the plots of them both in a manner to make them look the same.

It's a known phenomena, to the point people say there are basically 7 different plot types that all stories fall into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

Geniass

homer911 wrote: »

Reread your post - you said "media". Last time I checked, TV and Internet were also "media"

Thanks for pointing out that TV & Internet are media. Context is key.

Terrlock

What's the chorus of this song about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IrQHeDcMi8

Pure blasphemy at it's finest, is it intentional or just harmless humor?

Terrlock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see the problem here is that Christian writers such as Paul Asay in the blog you linked to make the same mistake that Joseph Atwill does in Caesar's Messiah: Just because you can see parallels between two stories doesn't mean that the author intended them to be there.

In fact, Atwill's work is a very good analogy for the blog post above since Atwill's thesis is formed by constructing parallels between Jospehus' The Jewish War and the gospels. However, Atwill's thesis fails because although his scholarship of Josephus and the Flavians is commendable, his research of the NT is poor leading to a meaningless comparison.
Similarly, the blog post above is written by an author who is clearly knowledgeable about the Bible but is clueless about the wider mythology on which Age of Ultron is based.

Ultron first appears in Avengers #54 and although he has had a number of creators over the years through various retcons, he was first created by Hank Pym, a character who has yet to make an appearance in the MCU. Pym creates Ultron and uses his own brain patterns as the basis for Ultron's AI. The problem with Ultron though lies in Pym's own mental instability. He has borderline schizophrenia which presents as a conflict between his innate pacifism and his desire to establish order in society. Because Ultron's AI is based on such a fragile mind, it rapidly grows out of control. So when the blog author says:

"Ultron wants to remake life into something closer to his own image."

he is seeing biblical parallels without acknowledging the forty year character history of Ultron.

There is always a degree of fan-service in MCU movies but they are constrained within the current narrative framework of the MCU. So, Vision in as much as the author sees him as a messianic figure, is really just a character written into the story for fan-service but retconned to fit with the current MCU narrative. Vision was originally a synthetic human built by Ultron to do his bidding to be in Ultron's words: "my perfect vision of destruction". Originally Vision was solar-powered with a solar jewel on his brow which allowed him to both absorb solar energy and also to release concentrated blasts of IR and microwave radiation from it. However, the presence of the jewel now is a convenient way to tie Age of Ultron in to the established Thanos/Infinity Stones narrative which started in the Avengers and was expanded upon in Guardians of the Galaxy. So when the blog author says:

"In the context of the story, Vision is saying that he is conscious. He is alive. But it’s also an explicit allusion to God’s own statement of “I AM” in the burning bush. We’re given another godlike being with a penchant for biblical asides—only this one comes to save, not kill. He is, in a way, a New Testament savior pitted against a wrathful, Old Testament-like god—an intercessor to stave off Ultron’s ultra-doom.

he is again wide of the mark.

The Christian parallels in Ultron stem from treating the movie as a standalone work which it isn't. There is a rich comic book history as well as a cinematic network to explore in analysing the themes of Marvel movies and blog authors would do well to educate themselves before claiming such tenuous parallels.

How can this be wide of the mark, Comics have used biblical stories as there basis for many characters for a very long time.

They have just twisted the stories enough so that the Antichrist type of the bible appears as the Good guy in these stories.

the "I am" quote is taken directly from the Gospel. There was absolutely no mistaking that at all.

the whole city as a mountain....End times Jerusalem anyone?

Here is an interesting Review of the film that goes through the biblical references

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYhNplFs8c

This guys actually misses a lot of the plain quotes the film uses.

Not a NSA agent

Terrlock wrote: »

What's the chorus of this song about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IrQHeDcMi8

Pure blasphemy at it's finest, is it intentional or just harmless humor?

The lord isnt a fan of paying your bills?

Well the RCC got that part down!

oldrnwisr

Terrlock wrote: »

How can this be wide of the mark, Comics have used biblical stories as there basis for many characters for a very long time.

They have just twisted the stories enough so that the Antichrist type of the bible appears as the Good guy in these stories.

the "I am" quote is taken directly from the Gospel. There was absolutely no mistaking that at all.

the whole city as a mountain....End times Jerusalem anyone?

Here is an interesting Review of the film that goes through the biblical references

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYhNplFs8c

This guys actually misses a lot of the plain quotes the film uses.

How can this be wide of the mark you ask? Of course it can. Let's just take the "I am" quote you mention. The author of the blog you linked to has this to say:

"They have to ask him what side he’s on—not something you ever want to ask of the superbeing you just molded from techno-clay. Vision puzzles over the question a bit and says he’s not sure he’s on anyone’s side: He’s on the side of life, whereas Ultron isn’t. He says, simply, “I am …” allowing the words to tail off."

So you're basing the gospel reference on the basis of two words, bit vague don't you think? For example he could be referencing La Cage Aux Folles and what he really means is "I Am What I Am". However, like I said in my previous post if you try to understand the wider context of this movie you'll see why a gospel reference is a weak argument.

Vision, as I posted previously, was originally created by Ultron in the comics. Ultron refers to vision as "my perfect vision of destruction" while Vision refers to himself as "my master's perfect vision of the future". However, in creating Vision, Ultron bases his brain patterns on Wonder Man (Simon Williams) a rival of Tony Stark one who harbours a deep resentment of Stark and the Avengers but deep down is a good and moral person. Thus, Williams' deeper morals come to the surface when Vision turns against Ultron and aids the Avengers. The comics portray Vision as an android, a synthetic being programmed by a rogue robot to be a soulless killing machine. However, Vision breaks his programming and thinks for himself. As such, when Vision says "I am" in the movie, it is not a reference to the gospels but rather to Descartes: "I think, therefore I am".

Don't you think that it's strange that the director of a Marvel movie, an atheist who in a previous interview said:


The Onion: Is there a God?
Whedon: No.
The Onion: That's it, end of story, no?
Whedon: Absolutely not. That's a very important and necessary thing to learn.

would choose to suddenly abandon the comic book mythos on which the movie is built and suddenly start using out-of-place bible quotes.


To reiterate the point, just because you see references or parallels in something, doesn't mean that the author intended them to be there. For example, one of the best examples of allusion on TV, for my money, is the Simpsons. The writers of the Simpsons weave pop culture references into the story better than anyone. So, for example, when Homer introduces Lisa's great uncle Chet in "Lisa the Simpson" as someone who runs an unsuccessful shrimp company we understand the joke because of the reference to Forrest Gump. Now let's consider Marge's brief stint as a realtor in "Realty Bites". One could consider this a reference to Annette Benning's character in American Beauty. But, since the episode aired in 1997 and the movie was released in 1999, the allusion only exists in the mind of the viewer. So it is with Atwill. He creates parallel and allusion where none actually exists.



Another example of this is in South Park. In the episode Scrotie McBoogerballs, the boys, offended by the lack of obscenity in Catcher in the Rye, set out to write a book which will be as profane and offensive as possible. However, the public buy the book by the thousands and it becomes a literary success. However, the reason for this success is that people start inferring themes from the book that they do not actually contain:


Stan: More and more of us are against this book every day! The author is cruel and offensive! And for these reasons, we demand this book be banned from all school, stores, and libraries! This book is nothing but smut and vulgarity purely for the sake of smut and vulgarity!

Assemblyman 1: That's just because you're too young to understand the underlying themes.

Cartman: There are no underlying themes! We know that for a fact!

Assemblyman 2: You just fail to understand what the author meant.

Kyle: The author meant to be as gross as possible because it was funny!

Assemblyman 3: [chuckles] No, no no, that's such a simplistic view.

Stan: Goddamnit there is no deeper meaning in this book! Read it again!

Assemblywoman 1: Oh, so you're suggesting that the author just arbitrarily made fun of Sarah Jessica Parker for no reason?

Kyle: Yes!

Assemblywoman 1: But what would be the point? Cartman: There is no point! It's just because Sarah Jessica Parker is <snip> ugly!


and later:


Shopper 6: Says you! You must be a pro-life nut, huh? [slides into taunting] Didn't like what the book had to say?

Marsha: What are you talking about? This book is as pro-life as it gets!

Cartman: Oh come on!

Stan: God-damnit, will you people stop reading into stuff that isn't there!!


Just because you see references in something doesn't mean that the author put them there. Simples.

tommy2bad

Terrlock wrote: »

How can this be wide of the mark, Comics have used biblical stories as there basis for many characters for a very long time.

They have just twisted the stories enough so that the Antichrist type of the bible appears as the Good guy in these stories.

the "I am" quote is taken directly from the Gospel. There was absolutely no mistaking that at all.

the whole city as a mountain....End times Jerusalem anyone?

Here is an interesting Review of the film that goes through the biblical references

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYhNplFs8c

This guys actually misses a lot of the plain quotes the film uses.

Also it's not nearly the bible that's being poached. Superhero movies and the comics they source openly poach mythology. Never mind the archetypes they trade in, that the bible covers similar themes is not surprising, these are themes that have been explored as long as people have been telling stories.

EirWatcher

This seems relevant to this thread:

"One young man said he read that the pope had stopped watching TV a long time ago, and wanted to know what led him to making that choice.

The pope said he decided back in the middle of 1990 to stop because "one night I felt that this was not doing me good, it was alienating me" and he decided to give it up.

...

Those who produce or distribute content, like television stations, have the responsibility of choosing programs that strengthen values, that help people grow and prepare for life, "that build up society, that move us forward, not drag us down."

Viewers have the responsibility of choosing what's good, and changing the channel where there is "filth" and things that "make me become vulgar."

...

Later, in response to a journalist's question on the papal plane from Sarajevo back to Rome, the pope said the online or virtual world is a reality "that we cannot ignore; we have to lead it along a good path" and help humanity progress.

"But when this leads you away from everyday life, family life, social life, and also sports, the arts and we stay glued to the computer, this is a psychological illness," he said.

Negative content, he said, includes pornography and content that is "empty" or devoid of values, like programs that encourage relativism, hedonism and consumerism.

And on that note ... I'm off! :-)