RE: Oh nooooooooooo...
May 1, 2014 at 10:21 am
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2014 at 10:25 am by ManMachine.)
(May 1, 2014 at 9:55 am)Esquilax Wrote:(May 1, 2014 at 9:41 am)ManMachine Wrote: We are happy to let the film 'Gravity' pass despite it's massive scientific inaccuracies and it is far more likely to misinform people than this low budget Christian documentary.
There is a big difference between those two movies, though: intent.
Gravity may be inaccurate, but it's also entertainment, and there's a certain expectation of fantasy when it comes to entertainment. These christian movies? They're also vehicles for proselytizing, dressed up as simple fun; say what you want about the science in Gravity, at least that wasn't actively, wildly wrong. At no point did Gravity claim, say, that the theory of gravity is connected to some other unrelated theory.
These christian movies exist to cast doubt on evolution, using lies and misinformation to do so, and smearing those of us that lack belief in the process. This isn't just entertainment, it's active promotion of a message that's not only factually wrong, but actively seeks to retard scientific progress and foster distrust of scientists, atheists, and educators. If you think this is just a movie and I'm reading too much into things, I just need to point you to the credits of God's Not Dead, which displays information on a number of real life court cases where us damnable atheists are trying to "take god out of schools" by asking that they obey the law. It's not just fantasy, the producers are clearly setting these movies up as reflective of real life, as plausible scenarios despite the strawmen and falsehoods.
That's why it deserves more attention for its inaccuracies.
If no one sees the film then it has little impact. Why promote it?
My point is not to compare the scientific merits of each movie I mentioned (underlined by the use of a non-scientific example at the end of my post) but to point out that if an issue is made of the inaccuracies then doesn't just promote those inaccuracies but provides a platform for all of the films aspects and themes, including its 'intent', as you put it.
It's difficult to isolate aspects in a cohesive body of work, even if it is grossly inaccurate and factually wrong. No one remembers that the so called 'true case' the film the Exorcist was based on was a case that centred around a young boy and not a girl as depicted in the film. What they remember is it was horrifying enough for people to make a fuss about (at the time).
It's a very risky strategy and you could end up promoting something you would not wish to promote.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
