FIREPROOF - The new film from Sherwood Pictures

[Jason Miller]

was it a Great documentary or an enjoyable film, i.e did it look at religion with an open mind, and not prejudge the reality of creation and the afterlife?

or was it simply Athiest propaganda that didn't give equal validity to both sides? because the second option may be entertaining to some, but in no way can be called a documentary.

 

[Jason Miller]

I'll see it in time; it's pretty far down on my list of priorities these days (real life)

hmm see I found watching it made real life a little easier.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Heh heh

I got a lot of shite on my plate brother.

I did watch Cop Land again last night though; always makes me feel better.

 

[spidey]

He talks to a bunch of different people.

Basically he goes in with the quote "I don't Know"
So he goes from there.

It's very interesting. my favorite quote is:
"You're a Vatican Scientist... That's like being a Gay Republican."

 

[Jason Miller]

It's very interesting. my favorite quote is:
"You're a Vatican Scientist... That's like being a Gay Republican."

That sounds prety pre judgmental to me. there are a lot of Scientists who are Christians. it is possible to understand the laws of physics, and nature, and still seee them as creations of God.

 

[Jason Miller]

I think we probably shouldn't talk about this film here, there was already a thread for it that was shut down because passions flew a little to freely, along side insults lol.

 

[slimjimmed]

Thanks for the reply, Jason.

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 sacrifice 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.

This gets at what I was saying about things being pre-defined... How you can define the ultimate nature and validity of an action without having seen the circumstances(in this case not seeing the movie).

From your POV, that's totally fine, of course, since that doesn't reflect your faith. I am totally down with honoring other people's choices regarding faith as long as it doesn't denigrate or invalidate mine.

The reference about a sacrifice being a lie unless you have god in your hearts is
a precondition that is exclusionary, insulting, and lacking open-mindedness for others'
beliefs and convictions.

(Now you communicated it to me in a way that I wasn't insulted, so don't get me wrong. I am only speaking of the intellectual stance that you illustrated in a non-personal way.)

 

[Nathyn]

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).

So where does that leave Tyler Perry? His stuff got big because of the black Church and many of the values are openly Christian. I know where you're coming from but are you looking for a certain thing that you feel makes a film? If a film doesn't need nudity sex or some other vice why add it? These films don't seem to need all that. Why show it? I'm sure I could've paid a girl to take off her top or something in my film. But why? It doesn't tell the story any better. If it's needed that's one thing but otherwise why do it to satisfy some prurient desire when it doesn't even tell the story?

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.

But how do you think I feel when I watch "The Good Girl" and the only Christian character is used to show that Christians are assholes? Simply because the movie was to make you feel sorry for an adulteress therefore the Christian (think Christian values = Thou shall not commit adultery) can be nothing more than a stumbling block for this purpose. If you're not happy. Do what makes you happy. Did the filmmaker give the "Christian" side. The opinions that could be presented to challenge these principles' righteousness (through characters or situations) are not given a fair shake either. Do you "ultimately" feel that way about secular movie making? No one challenges the system.

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.

I'll step in here and say this is not totally true. Biblically nothing says humans are not capable of this type of love and sacrafice, unless we have God (by "God" I assume you mean Christ) in our hearts. That would discount all the OT prophets, Ghandi and a host of other people who've died for causes.

As Jason said it is the Christian belief is that to truly love you need God to show you what love is. To truly love one must be good. And only God is good. God shows us what love is and it's mainly compassion for your fellow human being - emotional or not. And a Christian's main goal is to save souls. That's is done by telling people about Christ. That's why Christian film are done the way they're done. Promoting Jesus is the primary goal, entertainment is secondary. That is the purpose of these films. Neither purpose need go by the wayside.

Also it's believed that when the Word of God goes out it doesn't come back empty. Even though my first film sucked one day someone emailed me and told me they really enjoyed it and felt compelled to show it to their pastor. People are touched by many different things and sometimes even a bad film can strike a cord in someone. I can think of many bad films that have supplied hours of entertainment or even touched me in someway. "American Ninja" nor "El Mariachi" are Oscar material but they both have had significant impact on me and my "career" choices.

-Nate

 

[jls4]

Here ya go for all the folks who talked bad about fireproof. I guess this movie really is "Fireproof" hahaha

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27107758

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Looks like it would be a good time to have a polished looking film about Christian Marital values in the can that's looking for distribution [cough] brandon [/cough]

 

[Brandon Rice]

yeah...

funny you should mention that...

 

[Nathyn]

Hm. Know anybody like Brandon?

-Nate

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Here is the key ingredient for you faith based filmmakers

"Part of the film's success can be attributed to a marketing plan that targeted areas with large and enthusiastic faith-based communities. Distributor Samuel Goldwyn Films had a pretty good idea of where it might do well based on where "Facing the Giants" succeeded, said head of distribution Michael Silberman.

It has done best so far in the Atlanta region as well as cities such as Dallas, Texas, Tampa, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Charlotte, North Carolina, Silberman said.
A marketing technique honed during the "Facing the Giants" release, the "action squad," helped bring the movie to some smaller markets that might not otherwise have seen it on opening weekend. If the film wasn't set to play within 30 miles of a community, an action squad could bring it there by buying 1,000 tickets.

The success may also be driven by the fact that the Christian community, including the Kendricks, is also starved for movies that reflect its values, which often is not the case with Hollywood fare."

 

[Nathyn]

With all that being said JR what bothers me isn't how to or how not to market the film, but the general hatred for this film. People act like Christians are coming to their house and forcing them to see the film by gunpoint. Also the unadulterated hate for Kirk Cameron is dumbfounding. He's not De Niro, but did he kill anyone or do anything wrong or vile. He simply decides he doesn't want to kiss other women besides his wife. Is he a chuckle head sometimes, sure, but I can think of many things to hate a man for and that ain't one.

No hate for Brad Pitt or Jolie? (Wasn't Pitt married when he started dating Angie?) No hate for others who do bad things to their spouses? But hate a man who loves his wife. The problem is this movie has gone beyond being a movie. People are so scared now days that someone's coming to get them. They get all riled up that someone's going to make them do something?

This isn't Russia circa 1980. No one forces people to see films here. Even E-online dismisses it as Christians buying up blocks of tickets. But isn't it okay in America to see the film of your choosing?

As for the success of Christian films it's easy to make one and it be successful, but the question is how does it get to the market and I think you helped answer that one. But also there's a question of audience. Do you want "non-believers" watching or those who already believe? And also are you ready to take the hate that those who want to suppress your freedom of speech will throw your way.

America is overheating right now. If you disagree with someone it's "hate" and everyone's scared of the other person's view be they Christian or non-Christian, black or white, male or female. I could go into what just happened a day or so ago in our political sphere but I know the rules on that.

Either way it's an interesting, but dangerous time in America right now. I'd like to know how we got this far. If this film was released just ten years ago no one would've cared. Twenty years ago it would've been welcomed. (At least not hated). I can see a future where mad atheist will picket a film like this. It sounds crazy, but the things going on now sound crazy twenty years ago. Right now people are very emo - more likely to feel and less likely to think. This country is becoming a less of a melting pot and more of a pressure cooker.

People are holding back a lot of anger and resentment. Poor self esteem and a belief the other person is the cause of our individual problems are destroying this country. People may not see how the dots connect but basically I'm questioning how anger is being demonstrated today. Looking at heated debates about this movie (on other sites) show that the debates are not about the film at all. It's all personal and about being mad at how the other person lives.

-Nate

 

[J.R. Hudson]

With all that being said JR what bothers me isn't how to or how not to market the film, but the general hatred for this film. People act like Christians are coming to their house and forcing them to see the film by gunpoint. Also the unadulterated hate for Kirk Cameron is dumbfounding. He's not De Niro, but did he kill anyone or do anything wrong or vile. He simply decides he doesn't want to kiss other women besides his wife. Is he a chuckle head sometimes, sure, but I can think of many things to hate a man for and that ain't one.

I don't personally have any hatred for this type of film beyond not having much of an interest in seeing it for reasons already expressed. Everyone here knows very well my type of kicks in cinema. I do confess, I don;t want to be preached to at all. I'm on my own journey in my search for god and spirituality and have dipped and dabbled and am still seeking these truths.

Cameron is just a victim of his own extremity I think. The battles that stemmed from Growing Pains due to his beliefs come to mind and his not willing to kiss another actress is baffling to me personally, but of course, his right to choose this value. I don't dislike the guy at all; loved him on Growing Pains, but like Ricky Schroeder, I can;t get past that typecast.

No hate for Brad Pitt or Jolie? (Wasn't Pitt married when he started dating Angie?) No hate for others who do bad things to their spouses? But hate a man who loves his wife. The problem is this movie has gone beyond being a movie. People are so scared now days that someones coming to get them. They get all riled up that someones going to make them do something?

I can't judge a man until I've walked in his shoes and this is a lesson I have learned in the last year. I know most religions do not condone infidelity, but life is not all back and white; it is full of grey. Once people accept that fact, they'll get through life a lot easier I think.

Brad and Jen (Like many couples) were not meant to be and when that realization happens, it doesn;t matter how it ends at the end of the day.

This isn't Russia circa 1980. No one forces people to see films here. Even E-online dismisses it as Christians buying up blocks of tickets. But isn't it okay in America to see the film of your choosing?

Of course it is.

As for the success of Christian films it's easy to make one and it be successful, but the question is how does it get to the market and I think you helped answer that one. But also there's a question of audience. Do you want "non-believers" watching or those who already believe? And also are you ready to take the hate that those who want to suppress your freedom of speech will throw your way.

I think if a film is being made to make believers out of non believers, then that is inherently the problem. The problem of agenda that supersedes the art itself.

America is overheating right now. If you disagree with someone it's "hate" and everyone's scared of the other person's view be they Christian or non-Christian, black or white, male or female. I could go into what just happened a day or so ago in our political sphere but I know the rules on that.

I agree on this.

Either way it's an interesting, but dangerous time in America right now. I'd like to know how we got this far. If this film was released just ten years ago no one would've cared. Twenty years ago it would've been welcomed. (At least not hated). I can see a future where mad atheist will picket a film like this. It sounds crazy, but the things going on now sound crazy twenty years ago. Right now people are very emo - more likely to feel and less likely to think. This country is becoming a less of a melting pot and more of a pressure cooker.

I can't get started on the state of affairs in my country. I am not thrilled with the status quo and would consider leaving if I had the resources. Not a discussion to have here.

People are holding back a lot of anger and resentment. Poor self esteem and a belief the other person is the cause of our individual problems are destroying this country. People may not see how the dots connect but basically I'm questioning how anger is being demonstrated today. Looking at heated debates about this movie (on other sites) show that the debates are not about the film at all. It's all personal and about being mad at how the other person lives.

-Nate

I agree. Maintaining an open mind and not letting prejudices get in the way is not an act most people are capable of.

 

[Nathyn]

I don't personally have any hatred for this type of film beyond not having much of an interest in seeing it for reasons already expressed. Everyone here knows very well my type of kicks in cinema. I do confess, I don;t want to be preached to at all. I'm on my own journey in my search for god and spirituality and have dipped and dabbled and am still seeking these truths.

Oh, I think you and most people here have been pretty fair and straight forward about this whole thing.

Cameron is just a victim of his own extremity I think. The battles that stemmed from Growing Pains due to his beliefs come to mind and his not willing to kiss another actress is baffling to me personally, but of course, his right to choose this value. I don't dislike the guy at all; loved him on Growing Pains, but like Ricky Schroeder, I can;t get past that typecast.

I admit Cameron is used poorly.

I can't judge a man until I've walked in his shoes and this is a lesson I have learned in the last year. I know most religions do not condone infidelity, but life is not all back and white; it is full of grey. Once people accept that fact, they'll get through life a lot easier I think.

Not to judge, just saying out of all the reason's to be pissed at a person it's a bit odd that wanting to kiss one's own wife is the reason many are hating on Kirk (and yes we know there more to it but the comment is what started the Kirk-bashing on other sites). But since Brad and Angie make a cuter couple it's okay.

I think if a film is being made to make believers out of non believers, then that is inherently the problem. The problem of agenda that supersedes the art itself.

Not if the film is open about this. I mean it's not like people don't know this is from a Christian company and don't know what the film is about. If they made "Basic Instinct 3: Back in the Deathbed" starring Sharon Stone and Kirk Cameron and it turned out to be a Christian film when people expected an Erotic Thriller then I could see people being mad. Frankly, Kirk Cameron being in a film usually screams Christian or at least family friendly. LOL. If I warn you of my low-budget propaganda film and you come anyway, that seems to say that person wanted to see my propaganda.

I agree. Maintaining an open mind and not letting prejudices get in the way is not an act most people are capable of.

True. I've come to the conclusion if people have to tell me they're open minded then I immediately doubt it. I find that most "open minded" people are only open minded if you agree. And that's on both sides of the fence.

-Nate

 

[Dvader]

I think if a film is being made to make believers out of non believers, then that is inherently the problem. The problem of agenda that supersedes the art itself.

I think that is a really great way of putting it, "problem of agenda that supersedes the art itself" actually got me to start thinking about other movies...

Take Religulous for example, while it could be said Fireproof attempts to make believers out of non-believers, could it not be said Religulous attempts to do the same thing but in an opposite way by making non-believers?

Would those who praise Religulous but hate on Fireproof for having agenda be hypocrites? And then in turn would those who praise Fireproof and hate on Religulous be hypocrites? I ask this because I see both camps of each movie disliking and not believing the agenda of the other...

Then going back to what Hudson said, possibly both movies have the same agenda over art problem

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I think so

I find Religulous to look like such an awesome film; maybe becuase my beliefs are not in cement ?

I think the radical thought process that faith induces in some people is what turns me off; like wearing blinders to the reality of the science and faith coin.

 

[Nathyn]

I think the radical thought process that faith induces in some people is what turns me off; like wearing blinders to the reality of the science and faith coin.

It's all faith. Whether you have faith in a god or not. I also agree Kubrick71. And the science versus faith argument is old hat. Science and faith were never supposed to be like it is today, scientist clinging to science like it was a faith and the faithful trying to turn their beliefs into science. What happened to the good old days when doctors said this person won't make it through the night and a group of people prayed over that person and that person lived for years longer while dumbfounded doctors shrugged. No one says we don't need doctors (science) but if the doctor fails why not try God (faith). This is how people used to view it (in my experience) as opposed one was right and the other wrong. And it's gotten the same way in movies and in life and it's making everything (even conversation) suck!

I think so

I find Religulous to look like such an awesome film; maybe becuase my beliefs are not in cement ?

But one thing JR I'm glad you said "the radical thought process that faith induces in some people" but at the same time faith is radical. That's why people have it. The problem with a film like Religulous is that it's insulting in it's belief that I, you, or whoever else have never questioned, have never studied, nor have no clue. Anything that has happened in our lives is all made up and even if God did have a hand in it why should we care. I could go into many things that have happened in my life (I won't because I got in trouble for that last time ) that pissed people off simply because they didn't feel God should be helping me. (Which to me is odd because that's not a lack of belief but an actual choice not to have faith). But I say that to question why be angry at someone's good fortune based on something they choose not to believe in?

Also Bill Marher will never put a person like me in one of his documentaries, only the wackos and the crazies and those who aren't that learned or knowledgeable about their faith. So it's there to show look how "crazy" people of faith are. Versus Fireproof which is there to heal marriages through the idea that faith in God may be helpful. (I'm simply looking at intent right now). While aimed at Christians yes it would like to bring others into the faith but again the film is aimed at Christians. If a bunch of Christian marriages are helped or healed, what is it to the world? Why do they care? (I have the answer to that but I can't talk about it here).

Let me put it this way to explain what Christians (many of us) are annoyed at, if someone made a film that was exactly the same but said faith in Buddha was helpful to marriages I doubt this thread would even be this long. Better yet, if I made a film about someone stealing a sacred cross or religious artifact, then in said film I beat up people, broke limbs and kicked major butt to get it back and in the end of the film, when I'm all beat up and can't fight anymore, the giant cross falls and smashes the badguy, do you know what people would be saying about me and Christians. We're evil and violent and coming to get them. People would be huddled in their closets scared to death Christians are coming to kill them with Tae-Bo a dynamic acrobatics in America 2008? (I'm being facetious). Tony Jaa does it and we all cheer when Buddha's giant head falls and crushes the greedy badguy.

-Nate

 

[slimjimmed]

Let me put it this way to explain what Christians (many of us) are annoyed at, if someone made a film that was exactly the same but said faith in Buddha was helpful to marriages I doubt this thread would even be this long.

Buddhism is much less well-known than Christianity in the US. Moreover, almost everyone here has had experiences/relationships with those that are Christians in some direct way or another.