Verdict in on The Passion

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-02-25 11:18pm

They'd freak trying to shield their kids from a boob, but they'd probably make their kids see the movie. Key difference being it's about Christ.

Bwaahahahahahaha, people are funny today.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-25 11:30pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Would it be ironic if some of the people who took their kids to see it were up in arms over Janet Jackson't halftime stunt?

That's definitely happening. Reports being called in to talk radio shows tonight in Toronto indicate that there are a lot of small children being taken to this film by their parents.

Remember this next time the "family values" assholes start ranting about protecting the kids from offensive content on TV.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-02-25 11:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Would it be ironic if some of the people who took their kids to see it were up in arms over Janet Jackson't halftime stunt?
That's definitely happening. Reports being called in to talk radio shows tonight in Toronto indicate that there are a lot of small children being taken to this film by their parents.

Remember this next time the "family values" assholes start ranting about protecting the kids from offensive content on TV.

That's interesting. Most of the local reports here in the Bay Area have said this show is not for children. Even the movie goers are saying that. Maybe our fundies are liberal fundies.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-26 05:45am

Shinova wrote:They'd freak trying to shield their kids from a boob, but they'd probably make their kids see the movie. Key difference being it's about Christ.

Bwaahahahahahaha, people are funny today.

Make them see it? When the kids flinch or look away in horror, they probably grab their heads and twist them back around. Can't be missing a moment of this, it's the key to making the proper fundie, psychologically scarred and emotionally twisted (It is about loving life, but a brutal horrific death is good.)

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 05:57am

Darth Wong wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Would it be ironic if some of the people who took their kids to see it were up in arms over Janet Jackson't halftime stunt?
That's definitely happening. Reports being called in to talk radio shows tonight in Toronto indicate that there are a lot of small children being taken to this film by their parents.

Remember this next time the "family values" assholes start ranting about protecting the kids from offensive content on TV.

That's ironic, since even the film's website (obviously) recommends that children not see the film without parents seeing it first.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-26 06:50am

Darth Wong wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Would it be ironic if some of the people who took their kids to see it were up in arms over Janet Jackson't halftime stunt?
That's definitely happening. Reports being called in to talk radio shows tonight in Toronto indicate that there are a lot of small children being taken to this film by their parents.

Remember this next time the "family values" assholes start ranting about protecting the kids from offensive content on TV.

Oh, it's worse then you think. This movie has enough violence in it that it apparently offers conclusive proof that the RIAA will never give an NC-17 to a movie for violence. The thought that small children are seeing this has me shuddering in terror at what the next generation is going to end up like.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-02-26 01:52pm

Why wasn't this amount of up roar about violience when kill bill came out? If its a nameless nija that gets slaughtered it is acceptable. If its a character(s) which we are supposed to care about, and violence shown in an emotional way other than cool, its grotesk!!!

No kids should not see this film, I think thats wrong, but the critics who say it is to violent, some of them have praised kill bill. Hypocrisy comes from both sides. Violence is only good when it is cool I guess.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/aut ... ting&page=

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/aut ... ting&page=

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-26 01:57pm

Sam Or I wrote:Why wasn't this amount of up roar about violience when kill bill came out? If its a nameless nija that gets slaughtered it is acceptable. If its a character(s) which we are supposed to care about, and violence shown in an emotional way other than cool, its grotesk!!!

No kids should not see this film, I think thats wrong, but the critics who say it is to violent, some of them have praised kill bill. Hypocrisy comes from both sides. Violence is only good when it is cool I guess.

easy. kill bill was done all in good fun to the masses. in this case it's heresy, or some other contrived bs reason.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-26 02:03pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Sam Or I wrote:Why wasn't this amount of up roar about violience when kill bill came out? If its a nameless nija that gets slaughtered it is acceptable. If its a character(s) which we are supposed to care about, and violence shown in an emotional way other than cool, its grotesk!!!

No kids should not see this film, I think thats wrong, but the critics who say it is to violent, some of them have praised kill bill. Hypocrisy comes from both sides. Violence is only good when it is cool I guess.
easy. kill bill was done all in good fun to the masses. in this case it's heresy, or some other contrived bs reason.

Heresy? Hardly; Christ was tortured and lashed and so forth. Besides, why would secular critics care about heresy, anyway?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-26 02:08pm

Why wasn't this amount of up roar about violience when kill bill came out? If its a nameless nija that gets slaughtered it is acceptable. If its a character(s) which we are supposed to care about, and violence shown in an emotional way other than cool, its grotesk!!!

1) The violence in Kill Bill is comical and unrealistic, the violence in The Passion is brutal and quite realistic and 2) small kids were not taken to see Kill Bill in droves, which does not seem to be the case with this film.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-26 02:13pm

Well its rated R for a reason. I certainly would not take children to see it. It their parents really feel that its essential to their faith (it really isn't, its just the telling of Christ's crucifixion in another medium) then it will still be there when they're older.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-02-26 02:28pm

1) The violence in Kill Bill is comical and unrealistic, the violence in The Passion is brutal and quite realistic and 2) small kids were not taken to see Kill Bill in droves, which does not seem to be the case with this film.

1) So which is more disturbing? Showing the actual pain and torment of a character which the violence produces, or making it "comical" and saying violence is no big deal.

2) I never advocated children seeing either film.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 02:47pm

Both are equally disturbing, but the impression left on the child is somewhat dependent on the individual child (some kids are more impressionable and easily disturbed than others).

But your argument here is rather weak.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-02-26 02:52pm

Sam Or I, do you disagree with Tom and Jerry cartoons? Or Roadrunner?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-02-26 03:17pm

InnerBrat wrote:Sam Or I, do you disagree with Tom and Jerry cartoons? Or Roadrunner?

Itchy and Scratchy might be a better one, since they have blood and gore.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 03:21pm

No, I'd agree that Tom & Jerry is a better example, as they were a "real" cartoon. Additionally, I&S couldn't be taken as anything but parody and satire due to their length and execution.

T&J were frankly extremely violent shorts, compared to even Warner Bros.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-02-26 03:32pm

InnerBrat wrote:Sam Or I, do you disagree with Tom and Jerry cartoons? Or Roadrunner?

(How did I know this was going to come up) Both Kill Bill and the Passion show the actual violence and people dying, blood being spilled, both in graphic detail. The road runner does not.

Besides I am arguing the reverse, of what you are implying. I do not disagree with either. Both showed be acceptable as a form of art, I do not care if it shows the bloody details of Christ on the Cross, or the Horrors of the Holocaust in very graphic detail. Just because violence hits a emotional cord, it does not make it unacceptable. I actually see it more acceptable, because you feel for the victim and see the results of what violence actually does. I love Kill Bill, Boondock Saints, Pulp Fiction, Berserk, Resovior Dogs, Texas Chain Saw Massacre , ect..ect.. but to critise one for being violent and the other not I see as very hypocritical. Both are art, and if you cringe at the violence, maybe you are supposed to instaed of laugh at it. Both types of violence are targeting different reactions. Violence just becomes a tool to get the reaction the producer wants to get from the audience.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 03:33pm

Sam, the difference is in how the films present that violence.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-02-26 03:43pm

[quote="Spanky The Dolphin"]Sam, the difference is in how the films present that violence.[/quote]

If it is presented in a nonchalant, I do not see how it could be acceptable, while taking violence seriously is not.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 03:52pm

Then I can't help you.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-26 03:55pm

The Kernel wrote:Oh, it's worse then you think. This movie has enough violence in it that it apparently offers conclusive proof that the RIAA will never give an NC-17 to a movie for violence. The thought that small children are seeing this has me shuddering in terror at what the next generation is going to end up like.

Or, it's politics at work and they were afraid to label a Jesus film NC-17.

"It is an honest depiction of the BIBLICAL account of JESUS' death, how DARE you label it unsuitable for mah chilluns!"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-26 03:58pm

Sam Or I wrote:If it is presented in a nonchalant, I do not see how it could be acceptable, while taking violence seriously is not.

I think you're missing the whole fucking point, which is that the SAME fundies who protested the violence in "Kill Bill" have no problem with the violence in "The Passion", and worse yet, they're taking their kids to see it. Nobody was taking their kids to see "Kill Bill".

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-02-26 04:04pm

So, has anyone actually watched this yet?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-26 04:05pm

Superman wrote:So, has anyone actually watched this yet?

*takes a look at the Paypal button*

Hmm....

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-02-26 04:07pm