God's Not Dead 2 is in theaters now

[1neophyte]

Yes, I know the Hays Code has a few incorrect things, however, it is the best guide I’ve seen. Infantilize? Yeah, just like those “Art Houses” that showed “Art Films” in the old days. I remember the artists yelling for their “freedom” in the late 1960s. Too many movies, to them, were “pablum,” baby food. As soon as they got their “freedom,” a straight line can be drawn from what they wanted then to now.

Adult means what it’s always meant: dirty, filthy, perverted, dysfunctional, and let’s add buckets of blood and gore.

The Church had the right vision for what movies should be and I grew up with those movies. They were wonderful, uplifting and modeled good behaviors. There was a clear line between the good guys and the bad guys. And being bad was bad. Now? The “”"“hero”"" is just a little less brutal than the villain or less psychotic.

Heroes working with the bad guys to get what they want? Killing for revenge?

Trash. Garbage. Suitable for the gutter.

Ed

Just like that pesky New Testament with its “good” thieves, adulteresses cast as “saints”, and letters from a brutal murderer of Christians. Total trash.

 

[StudentMI]

Just like that pesky New Testament with its “good” thieves, adulteresses cast as “saints”, and letters from a brutal murderer of Christians. Total trash.

Ouch.

I do think the Hays Code did impart a mistaken sense of morality through film. For instance, the ‘rule’ regarding that bad guys have to die before film’s end, or be captured at least. Same with adulterers. Of course film wasn’t the dominant mode of cultural communication at the time, but it did make it seem like the bad guys always lose, which clearly isn’t the case in reality. There was little sense of forgiveness towards those who performed immoral actions. Sure, they might see the light before they died or were captured, but it still lead to death, even in the case of adultery. Where’s the Christianity in that?

Compare that to a film like L’Argent, from 1983, directed by my favorite director Robert Bresson. It was his final film and is a portrayal of greed. It contains one of the most shattering and beautiful endings I’ve ever seen. At the same time, it’s restrained, and contains no immoral content.

 

[edwest2]

Ouch.

I do think the Hays Code did impart a mistaken sense of morality through film. For instance, the ‘rule’ regarding that bad guys have to die before film’s end, or be captured at least. Same with adulterers. Of course film wasn’t the dominant mode of cultural communication at the time, but it did make it seem like the bad guys always lose, which clearly isn’t the case in reality. There was little sense of forgiveness towards those who performed immoral actions. Sure, they might see the light before they died or were captured, but it still lead to death, even in the case of adultery. Where’s the Christianity in that?

Compare that to a film like L’Argent, from 1983, directed by my favorite director Robert Bresson. It was his final film and is a portrayal of greed. It contains one of the most shattering and beautiful endings I’ve ever seen. At the same time, it’s restrained, and contains no immoral content.

No, the bad guys did not always die. Some escaped to fight the good another day. A lot were brought to justice even though the hero sometimes went to great pains to do so. The police detective would say, “Take 'em away, boys.” As in, prison.

Justice. There is no rule that ‘the bad guys have to die.’

Ed

 

[1neophyte]

There was little sense of forgiveness towards those who performed immoral actions. Sure, they might see the light before they died or were captured, but it still lead to death, even in the case of adultery. Where’s the Christianity in that?

That’s the problem with regulating decency. If someone decides that the criteria for a decent piece of work is a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys, not only do you end up with only poor writing, but a very twisted portrayal of reality. And when it comes from the Church of all places, it ends up confusing the actual point of Christianity and makes the whole enterprise look foolish. Not only does portraying “bad guys” as purely bad do a disservice to the gospel, but portraying “good guys” as purely good makes a mockery of truth. In another thread, someone said they had avoided seeing the “Spotlight” film because they assumed it was just another example of “anti-Catholic Hollywood.” When in fact, the film was very much pro-Catholic, and the anti-Catholicism came from the priests and bishops in real life.

It would be nice if there really was a clear distinction between “good” and “bad”, but real life simply is not like that. Films (or any works of art, for that matter) that imply otherwise are just bad art.

 

[mikekle]

• 1. While the movie was IMNAAHO a disappointment, the songs rocked.

I remember when we were younger and always wanted to watch kid movies, my parents and really most adults could not stand to be in the same room. lol

 

[edwest2]

That’s the problem with regulating decency. If someone decides that the criteria for a decent piece of work is a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys, not only do you end up with only poor writing, but a very twisted portrayal of reality. And when it comes from the Church of all places, it ends up confusing the actual point of Christianity and makes the whole enterprise look foolish. Not only does portraying “bad guys” as purely bad do a disservice to the gospel, but portraying “good guys” as purely good makes a mockery of truth. In another thread, someone said they had avoided seeing the “Spotlight” film because they assumed it was just another example of “anti-Catholic Hollywood.” When in fact, the film was very much pro-Catholic, and the anti-Catholicism came from the priests and bishops in real life.

It would be nice if there really was a clear distinction between “good” and “bad”, but real life simply is not like that. Films (or any works of art, for that matter) that imply otherwise are just bad art.

As a professional storyteller and editor, the audience roots for the heroes. Propaganda and anti-heroes, no matter how the story is told, are always bad.

People give their kids lines to not cross. Speed limits are limits. Both are for our own good. And the good of others.

Art is no excuse.

Ed

 

[rotlex]

No you’re not the only one.

The story was unrealistic, and only reinforces stereotypes. If a professor actually did what that guy did, he would lose his job. Doesn’t matter how “liberal” the college is. I’ve had atheist professors before, and they are nothing like that. In fact, I found the way all the non-Christian characters were portrayed - especially the atheists - to be poor. None of them were good people, let alone sympathetic. That’s just bad storytelling.

Sadly, I could never recommend it to my non-believing friends. This movie would only push them farther away.

My thoughts exactly. All movies like this do are fuel the fire for the anti Christians, atheists, and anyone else that is against religion.

I agree with all your points, as well as never even considering recommending it to a non believing friend.

 

[Robyn_p]

As a professional storyteller and editor, the audience roots for the heroes. Propaganda and anti-heroes, no matter how the story is told, are always bad.

People give their kids lines to not cross. Speed limits are limits. Both are for our own good. And the good of others.

Art is no excuse.

Ed

Now hold on, I disagree that anti-heroes are always bad. Most of Shakespeare’s protagonists are anti-heroes. They aren’t unambiguously good and often struggle with morality, but we still root for them.

Anti-heroes serve a legitimate function in fiction. Like anything, they can be abused, and I don’t like it either when movies have no genuinely good character to root for. But I think we go too far if we say that having an anti-hero is always wrong. It can allow writers to explore important themes that would otherwise be missed in a simple black/white story. That’s not using art as an excuse for immorality, it’s simply recognizing that good stories sometimes need complexity.

Like anything though, it depends on the nature of the story. Sometimes it is inappropriate to make a character an anti-hero, but sometimes it can add a lot to a movie.

 

[Robyn_p]

My thoughts exactly. All movies like this do are fuel the fire for the anti Christians, atheists, and anyone else that is against religion.

I agree with all your points, as well as never even considering recommending it to a non believing friend.

It’s sad, because I don’t want to be hard on these movies. I like the idea of showing apologetics on film. But it shouldn’t come at the price of demonizing our ideological opponents. It only does more harm. Not just to non-believers, but believers too. If a kid grows up thinking this is how atheists actually are, he’s in for a rude awakening when he finally meets a smart, articulate atheist who is a genuinely decent human being. His faith may even be shaken by that fact.

Thomas Aquinas always tried to find the best, most challenging argument his opponents had and then addressed them. He never made non-believers look ignorant or evil. He took them seriously. That’s what movies like these should be doing.

 

[phil19034]

Now hold on, I disagree that anti-heroes are always bad. Most of Shakespeare’s protagonists are anti-heroes. They aren’t unambiguously good and often struggle with morality, but we still root for them.

Anti-heroes serve a legitimate function in fiction. Like anything, they can be abused, and I don’t like it either when movies have no genuinely good character to root for. But I think we go too far if we say that having an anti-hero is always wrong. It can allow writers to explore important themes that would otherwise be missed in a simple black/white story. That’s not using art as an excuse for immorality, it’s simply recognizing that good stories sometimes need complexity.

Like anything though, it depends on the nature of the story. Sometimes it is inappropriate to make a character an anti-hero, but sometimes it can add a lot to a movie.

I don’t want to speak for Ed, but I believe he was referring anti-heroes being bad for kids.

I would agree with Ed, kids should not be idealizing anti-hero characters like Deadpool or the Suicide Squad.

Hollywood is in love with the anti-hero right now

 

[Robyn_p]

I don’t want to speak for Ed, but I believe he was referring anti-heroes being bad for kids.

I would agree with Ed, kids should not be idealizing anti-hero characters like Deadpool or the Suicide Squad.

Hollywood is in love with the anti-hero right now

Oh, I see. I didn’t catch that he was referring to only kids. In that that case I do agree. Superheroes should be heroes and role models. Although, I don’t think Deadpool and Suicide Squad are really aimed at kids. Deadpool certainly isn’t.

I will say I have noticed a bit of a bucking of the anti-hero trend lately in some major blockbusters. All the heroes in the new Star Wars film were pretty old-fashioned good guys. There was a clear line between good and evil, and the heroes were much more fun and charismatic than the villains. I found that refreshing. And the Marvel heroes are all pretty unambiguously good. (except for maybe Iron Man, but his character has grown over the years to a real hero)

Hoping we keep getting more of that kind of thing and less BvS/Deadpool.

 

[powerofk]

I don’t want to speak for Ed, but I believe he was referring anti-heroes being bad for kids.

I would agree with Ed, kids should not be idealizing anti-hero characters like Deadpool or the Suicide Squad.

Hollywood is in love with the anti-hero right now

See, here’s the thing - anti-hero doesn’t really mean “villian protagonist”; the modern prototypes for the anti-hero are Star Wars’ Han Solo (at least in the first Star Wars), X-Men’s Wolverine, and WWE’s Stone Cold Steve Austin - the guy who is brash, rude, rough-around-the-edges, but, in general, is a good person. Anti-hero, as a term, came to mean the protagonist that didn’t have all the classical hero qualities - and often play outside the accepted rules. They’re usually the “ends justify the means” heroes (in terms of alignment, we might say they’re “chaotic good”; at worst, they pretend to be “chaotic neutral” at the beginning of a story if they’re especially disillusioned - which is why most so-called anti-heroes are “reluctant” heroes). And anti-heroes usually pay dearly for their recklessness - they’ll usually win, but at such an extremely high cost that one wonders if their “win” was even worth it (e.g., they’ll save the world from a supervillian, but in the process, half their team dies).

 

[GEddie]

Couldn’t an alternate modern antihero be the “repentant villain” such as the title character in Megamind?

 

[phil19034]

See, here’s the thing - anti-hero doesn’t really mean “villian protagonist”; the modern prototypes for the anti-hero are Star Wars’ Han Solo (at least in the first Star Wars), X-Men’s Wolverine, and WWE’s Stone Cold Steve Austin - the guy who is brash, rude, rough-around-the-edges, but, in general, is a good person. Anti-hero, as a term, came to mean the protagonist that didn’t have all the classical hero qualities - and often play outside the accepted rules. They’re usually the “ends justify the means” heroes (in terms of alignment, we might say they’re “chaotic good”; at worst, they pretend to be “chaotic neutral” at the beginning of a story if they’re especially disillusioned - which is why most so-called anti-heroes are “reluctant” heroes). And anti-heroes usually pay dearly for their recklessness - they’ll usually win, but at such an extremely high cost that one wonders if their “win” was even worth it (e.g., they’ll save the world from a supervillian, but in the process, half their team dies).

Yes, but the point is that Hollywood is making these movies with anti-heros and stores are selling them to kids either via toys of video games. Doesn’t matter if it’s rated PG-13 or R, kids are seeing it and playing with those characters in the video games.

Anti-heros can be hard for kids to understand, which is why you have PG-13 or even R ratings for these movies.

 

[PrayerShark]

Yes, but the point is that Hollywood is making these movies with anti-heros and stores are selling them to kids either via toys of video games. Doesn’t matter if it’s rated PG-13 or R, kids are seeing it and playing with those characters in the video games.

Anti-heros can be hard for kids to understand, which is why you have PG-13 or even R ratings for these movies.

I don’t understand your response here. You’ve completely ignored Robyn P’s last reply, which pretty much cements the definition of an anti-hero.

 

[Sarcelle]

That’s right. I might see one or two movies in a year. The stuff I like on TV is old and moral. The new stuff on TV I watch on occasion to warn people.

Ed

I have stopped watching movies for some time now. For TV watching, I usually watch the Food Channel, Weather Channel and shows which document how things are built, like Extreme Engineering.

 

[Sarcelle]

Women, in particular, who allow themselves to be shown partly or fully nude are not acting. It’s not just a job. The same with profanity. Or declarations that two people who are not married are having sex. Modeling bad behavior is bad. Just because some consider it a job, they are modeling bad behavior.

Of course, they are acting, but those body parts are their’s.

Ed

Or maybe it isn’t. Some actresses use body doubles for certain scenes.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Or maybe it isn’t. Some actresses use body doubles for certain scenes.

Also, “depicting bad behavior” is not the same as “modeling bad behavior”. However, there are ways to depict the negative consequences of bad behavior without resorting to heavy-handed moralizing tactics, such as the “rule” that all criminals must be caught and punished, that movies used to adhere to in the Hays Code era.

Or even worse, that a woman who commits adultery, or other sexual sin, MUST die at the end of the movie, even if she repents. As a frequent TCM viewer, I can think of a bunch of 1930s-1940s era movies that follow this formula. Waterloo Bridge, for example. Marlene Dietrich often played “bad girls”, and her movies often ended with her character dying.

But, the idea that the only way a woman can atone for sexual sin, is to die, is NOT a Christian concept at all.

And that’s not even getting into the unsavoriness of how the Hays Code banned “miscegenation”, that is, relationships between those of different races.

Certainly, the current state of affairs in Hollywood is deplorable, but the Golden Age wasn’t really that Golden, IMHO.

 

[powerofk]

Also, “depicting bad behavior” is not the same as “modeling bad behavior”. However, there are ways to depict the negative consequences of bad behavior without resorting to heavy-handed moralizing tactics, such as the “rule” that all criminals must be caught and punished, that movies used to adhere to in the Hays Code era.

Or even worse, that a woman who commits adultery, or other sexual sin, MUST die at the end of the movie, even if she repents. As a frequent TCM viewer, I can think of a bunch of 1930s-1940s era movies that follow this formula. Waterloo Bridge, for example. Marlene Dietrich often played “bad girls”, and her movies often ended with her character dying.

But, the idea that the only way a woman can atone for sexual sin, is to die, is NOT a Christian concept at all.

And that’s not even getting into the unsavoriness of how the Hays Code banned “miscegenation”, that is, relationships between those of different races.

Certainly, the current state of affairs in Hollywood is deplorable, but the Golden Age wasn’t really that Golden, IMHO.

Right. I think we all agree that the current state of affairs in Hollywood is deplorable, especially when it comes to comedies. Yet overmoralizing isn’t good, either (or even necessarily realistic). I mean, in the 1950s, it was considered a huge scandal when Lucille Ball appeared on TV pregnant by her husband, who also played her husband on “I Love Lucy”. Seriously? A married woman being pregnant by her husband is immoral? It should have been celebrated! But today, we’ve gone too far in the other direction. I miss the days of Cody from “Step by Step” turning down girls willing to throw themselves on him because he believed that sex should be special (okay, we wish he would have said “for marriage”, but considering post-1960s culture, I’ll settle for “special”). Now, our comedies (and especially prime-time TV sitcoms, it seems) often push promiscuity as a virtue.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t understand your response here. You’ve completely ignored Robyn P’s last reply, which pretty much cements the definition of an anti-hero.

I didn’t ignore Robyn. I mostly agree with her. However, my point in that last email is that Hollywood is promoting PG-13 movies (and indirectly R rated movies) to kids.

Start Wars, Marvel, and Batman vs Superman are good examples. Lots of kids merchandise, but the movies are PG-13.

And Batman vs Superman is a good example of an anti-hero movie targeted towards kids. And I would bet that Sucide Squad will be promoted towards kids too with toys, etc.