Oh nooooooooooo...

[Esquilax]

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.

[tommynba]

Wtf is up with all if these religious movies? Religious people hate them I hate them. Everyone fucking hates them. Ugh

I think disabling likes and comments under this trailer speaks for itself

[Justtristo]

Noooooo, that... nooooo....





Coming next summer... Strawman 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I'm sure old Rev 777 will love it (and be completely unable to say why) but honestly, you'd think that at least a few of these people will twig that there's something fundamentally fucked up at having to defend a viewpoint using only lies, right?

Thankfully in this country this will go straight to video, no cinema is going to screen it I assure you.

[Foxaèr]

Thankfully in this country this will go straight to video, no cinema is going to screen it I assure you.

........................................

[Justtristo]

Thankfully in this country this will go straight to video, no cinema is going to screen it I assure you.

........................................

I meant Australia, which is the country I live in.

[Foxaèr]

I meant Australia, which is the country I live in.

I know. I checked your profile after I posted what I did.

My brain is not working too well today, and it is frustrating me.

[ManMachine]

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

[KUSA]

I won't watch it just like I didn't watch the other idiotic ones.

[Elskidor]

Would never watch something like this. Hell, I can't even sit through most haunting, exorsist or ghost movies because they feel more like a comic ad for priest demon hunters. I loathe these types of films.

[Minimalist]

I mean, us Brits didn't give Americans a hard time when the film U-571 got an Oscar despite it depicting Americans as the first to capture a German Enigma code machine in WWII when we all know it was the British Navy (HMS Bulldog) who first captured one from German U-boat U-110.

Our Hollywood gave America credit for capturing an enigma machine that cracked the code? I'm facepalming but I'm not surprised.

Oh, yeah. The movie was mind-numbingly bad.