FIREPROOF - The new film from Sherwood Pictures
- Thread starter Brandon Rice
- Start date
- Status
Larry Rutledge
Fest Master
And, just to be clear ... the messages I've removed are not necessarily because they are wrong/bad/etc, but because they have detracted from the purpose of this thread. Please resume the original discussion, but steer clear of personal belief.
jls4
Veteran
I agree with Larry. I've enjoyed and participated. No need to take it too far. Heck when I think I got a little "racy" I just PM'd the people who I wanted to know "more info". that way everyone didn't have to see/read it.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Good point.
And to be clear my goal was not to "force" my beliefs on anyone but explain where the filmmakers were going and to encourage others on this forum and who may read to keep moving ahead in this kind of filmmaking. I do believe the time is now. Thank you mods for not shutting the thread down. I wasn't seeking to offend anyone.
Or is he simply badly directed. You could make the same argument for Arnold be a bad actor. I also believe the roles he takes aren't right for him.
I think you're looking at it from the point of view of a filmmaker versus a normal (that's a comic book term for people without superpowers ). Most people simply watch what interest them. It really doesn't go further than that.
-Nate
And to be clear my goal was not to "force" my beliefs on anyone but explain where the filmmakers were going and to encourage others on this forum and who may read to keep moving ahead in this kind of filmmaking. I do believe the time is now. Thank you mods for not shutting the thread down. I wasn't seeking to offend anyone.
Or is he simply badly directed. You could make the same argument for Arnold be a bad actor. I also believe the roles he takes aren't right for him.
I think you're looking at it from the point of view of a filmmaker versus a normal (that's a comic book term for people without superpowers
). Most people simply watch what interest them. It really doesn't go further than that.-Nate
Last edited:
Larry Rutledge
Fest Master
I fully understand that in light of the 'user' policy against the topic of religion that this is a tricky thread. But the rule is in place for a reason, and a very good one at that.
This site is dedicated to filmmaking and not to politics or religion or quilting or making jam or canning fruit or playing basketball, etc. But films can be made on all these, and many more topics, so discussing these films requires delving slightly into the subject matter.
But we need to remember the focus here is telling stories and making films. So these films, and their subject matter, need to be discussed in that light. How better to tell the story, not whether my belief on the subject is right/wrong/better/worse. I may feel it's better to can fruit in the cellar and you may believe it is better to can it in the attic, but this is not the place to discuss that. Put those arguments into your film, let your film express your belief.
Rather discuss here how best to convey those arguments, for or against.
This site is dedicated to filmmaking and not to politics or religion or quilting or making jam or canning fruit or playing basketball, etc. But films can be made on all these, and many more topics, so discussing these films requires delving slightly into the subject matter.
But we need to remember the focus here is telling stories and making films. So these films, and their subject matter, need to be discussed in that light. How better to tell the story, not whether my belief on the subject is right/wrong/better/worse. I may feel it's better to can fruit in the cellar and you may believe it is better to can it in the attic, but this is not the place to discuss that. Put those arguments into your film, let your film express your belief.
Rather discuss here how best to convey those arguments, for or against.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Actually that is what I was trying to do, show that some of the stuff that happens in Christian life would come off as "cheesy" on screen. But honestly I have to admit you're right on this. The best question would be HOW to display what the film is going for without it looking cheesy.
-Nate
Jason Miller
Veteran
wow Larry thats deep, but you can fruit in the kitchen, you need the stove and running water. but its est to store it in the basement its cool wet, no air flow.
and much like canning fruit you, you have to have the right skills to direct a film, Kirk is not a bad actor, anyone can be a great actor if they have a good director. the Director needs to be involved, with staging, i.e. (mr director do I stand here when I say this) a director also needs to control the inflection and timing of how the actor delivers the lines. as well as emotions,
( look more sad, tilt the corner of your mouth a little more. look down a few more degrees, )
for many years I found Kirk perfectly believable as mike sever, he is a good actor. and in FireProof, he does a very good job.
btw you like my fruit canning segway?
and much like canning fruit you, you have to have the right skills to direct a film, Kirk is not a bad actor, anyone can be a great actor if they have a good director. the Director needs to be involved, with staging, i.e. (mr director do I stand here when I say this) a director also needs to control the inflection and timing of how the actor delivers the lines. as well as emotions,
( look more sad, tilt the corner of your mouth a little more. look down a few more degrees, )
for many years I found Kirk perfectly believable as mike sever, he is a good actor. and in FireProof, he does a very good job.
btw you like my fruit canning segway?
jls4
Veteran
Somewhat off subject - you think any one can be a good actor with a good director? I think a decent director can pull an okay "forced" performance, but a good actors are just good actors. I feel like there are TOO MANY people in Hollywood that CAN'T ACT and rely on a director for every drop of direction and meaning. I was so happy in my last movie that about 80% could self direct and I could just fix small nuances in their performance, and once I established and talked through the character, they would stay in character in almost every scene.
There are huge differences - in my opinion - on those who can and can't act, just like those who can and can't direct or those who can and can't do lighting, cinematography, audio, etc. People can always get better, but many people don't have a good concept and unfortunately no one has stopped them and said "hey you need to learn a little more."
just my .03 + a dime
Larry Rutledge
Fest Master
Unless you have a stove and sink in the basement in which case that, in my opinion, is the best place to perform the canning ... but I digress (you'll have to buy my "Can Fruit Like A Pro" documentary to get all the details)
Yes, you have to have the right skills to direct a film, but you also have to have the right skills to act in a film. I would slightly alter your statement and say that "anyone can be a decent actor with the right direction", but not everyone has the talent to be a great actor.
I can sing well, but I'll never be in the next rendition of Puccini's Turandot. Even if I had years of training from the best teachers, I don't have the skill of a Pavarotti. But I can hold my own on a much lower level. Or an even better example, I would not do well on American Idol because my voice doesn't fit the mold/style/sound of today's pop vocalists.
I think Kirk did fine as a child actor, I think he does a moderate job in the Left Behind films and in the FP clips I've seen. But I think these are the wrong roles for him. It's not that he does a terrible job, but the characters don't fit him.
So, he could have the best acting coach and the best actor's director, but if the role doesn't fit him then it won't come off as 100% believable.
Yes, you have to have the right skills to direct a film, but you also have to have the right skills to act in a film. I would slightly alter your statement and say that "anyone can be a decent actor with the right direction", but not everyone has the talent to be a great actor.
I can sing well, but I'll never be in the next rendition of Puccini's Turandot. Even if I had years of training from the best teachers, I don't have the skill of a Pavarotti. But I can hold my own on a much lower level. Or an even better example, I would not do well on American Idol because my voice doesn't fit the mold/style/sound of today's pop vocalists.
I think Kirk did fine as a child actor, I think he does a moderate job in the Left Behind films and in the FP clips I've seen. But I think these are the wrong roles for him. It's not that he does a terrible job, but the characters don't fit him.
So, he could have the best acting coach and the best actor's director, but if the role doesn't fit him then it won't come off as 100% believable.
Jason Miller
Veteran
oh that would make a wonderful Christmas gift for my Mom, where can I buy it?
Jason Miller
Veteran
anyway I think I'll see Fireproof again this weekend
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Great post Kubrick.
Tis is one thing I can arrogantly say about myself as well; a good film, is a good film.
My favorite films run the gamut; romance, adventure, srama, childrens films, etc
If Fireproof is a good one in my opinion, I'll be the first to say it.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
My top movie picks conquer that same vast gamut:evil:.
My personal favorite genre: Great Films
My personal favorite subgenre: Really Good Films
My personal favorite genre: Great Films
My personal favorite subgenre: Really Good Films
slimjimmed
Well-known member
I haven't had a chance to read through this entire, mammoth thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned before.
One of the things that turns me off from "Christian" films with a capital C, is that there is a filter put onto them. One example of this would be no nudity. Obviously, a film doesn't have to have nudity to be considered good,etc. That's crazy, but that's not my point. My point is that there seems to be a preconceived mindset of what is honorable to show people and what is not.
This doctrine or philosophy, seems to pre-rig the morals of the movie's universe to predefine what
behaviour is right and what is wrong based on the limits of what said church says is right and wrong. It always seems to be about "saving souls" and the behaviour and attitude that is needed
to be "saved", or be in God's good grace or however it is put.
For me, something is lost in this universe. I feel like eyes are averted from what is defined as wrong; and if it is shown, then it will have a moral judgement upon it through the film's emotional shading (whose rules originate and are delivered from said church's principles).
Ultimately, I feel like any opinions that could be presented to challenge these principles' righteousness(through characters or situations) are not given a fair shake. They are rigged to fall into a narrow, predefined definition. There is a reason they are "Christian" films with a capital C,
so why would they stray or challenge these definitions? The films seem rigged and rigidly judgemental.
On example of a film that I can think of that illustrates eternal commitment and love for a partner is Breaking The Waves. Now that is a film that is not a "Christian" sponsored film, yet illustrates
an astonishing level of sacrifice for the sake of a loved one. Always putting somebody before yourself, which obviously can have some serious consequences. I don't think that this film would fit into that "Christian" package because it bleeds out into areas that are uncomfortable to think about or might provide ideas or situations that don't have definitions except those that are formed by the
viewer.
Not to say that "Christian" films are the only films that are susceptable to this mindset. It isn't easy to make something that is solid, and so many films operate under a certain formula anyway.
But of the "Christian" films that I have seen they all seem to have this formula philosophy injected. I think it is probably what helps to distinguish them as "Christian".
One of the things that turns me off from "Christian" films with a capital C, is that there is a filter put onto them. One example of this would be no nudity. Obviously, a film doesn't have to have nudity to be considered good,etc. That's crazy, but that's not my point. My point is that there seems to be a preconceived mindset of what is honorable to show people and what is not.
This doctrine or philosophy, seems to pre-rig the morals of the movie's universe to predefine what
behaviour is right and what is wrong based on the limits of what said church says is right and wrong. It always seems to be about "saving souls" and the behaviour and attitude that is needed
to be "saved", or be in God's good grace or however it is put.
For me, something is lost in this universe. I feel like eyes are averted from what is defined as wrong; and if it is shown, then it will have a moral judgement upon it through the film's emotional shading (whose rules originate and are delivered from said church's principles).
Ultimately, I feel like any opinions that could be presented to challenge these principles' righteousness(through characters or situations) are not given a fair shake. They are rigged to fall into a narrow, predefined definition. There is a reason they are "Christian" films with a capital C,
so why would they stray or challenge these definitions? The films seem rigged and rigidly judgemental.
On example of a film that I can think of that illustrates eternal commitment and love for a partner is Breaking The Waves. Now that is a film that is not a "Christian" sponsored film, yet illustrates
an astonishing level of sacrifice for the sake of a loved one. Always putting somebody before yourself, which obviously can have some serious consequences. I don't think that this film would fit into that "Christian" package because it bleeds out into areas that are uncomfortable to think about or might provide ideas or situations that don't have definitions except those that are formed by the
viewer.
Not to say that "Christian" films are the only films that are susceptable to this mindset. It isn't easy to make something that is solid, and so many films operate under a certain formula anyway.
But of the "Christian" films that I have seen they all seem to have this formula philosophy injected. I think it is probably what helps to distinguish them as "Christian".
Last edited:
Jason Miller
Veteran
Just not the first to find out?
(thought Iposted this earler but I guess I left the computer before I hit send, I do that a lot lol)
Jason Miller
Veteran
Jim nice post, and interesting viewpoints, just to be up front, nothing you've said offended me, however I've not seen such a missunderstnding of what it means to be Christian in this thread.
for Christians, being Christian is a mandate that we accept with all the grace it was intended. you mentioned the film Breaking The Waves, its a film I have not seen but I'll take you're word for it that the film is full of love and true sacrafice for those they love. However from a Christian stand point this film is a lie, as Humans are not capable of this type of love and sacrafice, unless we have God in our hearts, Christians believe that by accepting him we are filled with a form of love that we've never felt before, and that no one who hasn't accepted him has ever felt, Christians also know that others who have accepted him understand this.
to put this in a worldly view. I'll use drugs as an example, Crank, cause its what I knew. snorting craink feels good physically, however people who slammed it, (injected it) were always accusing me of waiting craink on snorting it, they would tell me that I could never understand how crank feels untill i slammed it. had it in my vains in my blood. and they were correct I had no idea, I thought I had an idea, but I was wrong.
same with Christians, everyone thinks they know what love is, they think they understand sacrafice, but when the truly accept Christ, and become Christians, we are truly filled with things we never knew were there. its the same story over and over again with every christian I know.
this is where Christians films come in. the filmmakers understand something that they want others to understand, and thats if you want to understand true love if you want to know what life is all about, simply accept, and find joy. this is where Fireproof comes from its were No Greater Love comes from, I've not seen NGL, but I already know the M knight twist, the title isn't refering to the love between a man and a woman, its refering to the love God gives us. and this isn't a limitation, its a motivation,
films like Passion, FireProof, and hopefully NGL, are just the start of something big. its the start of Christianity finally accepting filmmaking as a valid way to pass the faith, to bring Jesus closer to the people and bring the people closer to Jesus. Christians are finally accepting one simple truth, and thats the only tool Satan has in this world is the same tool God has, humans, films are not autmaticly the work of Satan, same with art, or anything else in this world, what defines it as a work for of or a work of Satan is what is done with it. They are also starting to understand that just because it is not a Christian film it isn't always the work of satan either, only works that show sinful ways without repint are.
for Christians, being Christian is a mandate that we accept with all the grace it was intended. you mentioned the film Breaking The Waves, its a film I have not seen but I'll take you're word for it that the film is full of love and true sacrafice for those they love. However from a Christian stand point this film is a lie, as Humans are not capable of this type of love and sacrafice, unless we have God in our hearts, Christians believe that by accepting him we are filled with a form of love that we've never felt before, and that no one who hasn't accepted him has ever felt, Christians also know that others who have accepted him understand this.
to put this in a worldly view. I'll use drugs as an example, Crank, cause its what I knew. snorting craink feels good physically, however people who slammed it, (injected it) were always accusing me of waiting craink on snorting it, they would tell me that I could never understand how crank feels untill i slammed it. had it in my vains in my blood. and they were correct I had no idea, I thought I had an idea, but I was wrong.
same with Christians, everyone thinks they know what love is, they think they understand sacrafice, but when the truly accept Christ, and become Christians, we are truly filled with things we never knew were there. its the same story over and over again with every christian I know.
this is where Christians films come in. the filmmakers understand something that they want others to understand, and thats if you want to understand true love if you want to know what life is all about, simply accept, and find joy. this is where Fireproof comes from its were No Greater Love comes from, I've not seen NGL, but I already know the M knight twist, the title isn't refering to the love between a man and a woman, its refering to the love God gives us. and this isn't a limitation, its a motivation,
films like Passion, FireProof, and hopefully NGL, are just the start of something big. its the start of Christianity finally accepting filmmaking as a valid way to pass the faith, to bring Jesus closer to the people and bring the people closer to Jesus. Christians are finally accepting one simple truth, and thats the only tool Satan has in this world is the same tool God has, humans, films are not autmaticly the work of Satan, same with art, or anything else in this world, what defines it as a work for of or a work of Satan is what is done with it. They are also starting to understand that just because it is not a Christian film it isn't always the work of satan either, only works that show sinful ways without repint are.
Jason Miller
Veteran
costs 10 bucks here, will be seeing it for a second time, this weekend, so thats 30 bucks for me and my roommate whom i took the first time.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I'll see it in time; it's pretty far down on my list of priorities these days (real life)
- Status