By rolling a natural 20

And this is where we apparently disagree. I do not believe that there is any societal role in determining a universal definition of "family friendly" that all people must accept. Were society at large to decide that explicit sex acts on screen were now family friendly, I would be under no obligation to conform to that belief, and I would make sure that other parents were informed if someone attempted to market a film containing such acts under that label.

Family friendly is a subjective term, and nothing society at large does will change that.

The only reason this film is being "singled out" is because it is currently being marketed. It does not make much sense to bring Narnia into the discussion, since it has already been discussed, at the time of its release. And there were plenty of people at that time who were concerned over that film and its overtly Christian messages.

Perhaps you are upset because Christians are singling out Pullman's film at this time, but I think that is an unfair criticism. People tend to be more vocal when something is of concern to them. It isn't really their responsibility to voice the concerns of others.

I could not disagree more. One must not participate in an activity in order to determine its value. People rely on information all the time to help make their own decisions, and that in on way abrogates any responsibility. If we didn't there would be very little progress in the world. I don't need to become a crystal meth user to know that it is a bad idea. I can rely on the information provided by others to help make that decision.

The original email didn't coerce anyone to do anything. It only provided information and offered a (too strongly worded) suggestion. If someone blindly followed that suggestion without doing further research, then I would agree with you. But that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the email may have made people aware of a situation they were previously unaware of, giving them the opportunity to look deeper and decide for themselves.

[Disclaimer: My use of example such as explicit pornographic sex acts and crystal meth use in no way implies that I equate those actions with atheism. I merely used extreme example to illustrate various points in my comments.]

I'm still not sure how any rational person would accept a definition of "Family Friendly" that assumes that Family Friendly only encompasses their own specific religious beliefs.

I wouldn't have had any issue with the original email if it had said that the movie does not embrace traditional Christian beliefs.

If there is nothing anti-family in this movie, how is it not "family friendly"?

What's funny is that the people leading this boycott are the same ones who were first in line to take their young children to see The Passion of the Christ.

Hell yeah. A topic for another whopper of a thread. -ohbfrank-

If you can cite a single example of this specific sentiment, please do so.

As far as I am aware, there are many different religious and secular beliefs beyond Christianity and atheism. Do movies such as The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Toy Story, The Incredibles, or Ratatouille only encompass Christian beliefs? Not as far as I can tell. But as far as I know, there have been no concerns raised for any of those films, all of which are family friendly.

If you want to insist upon having a universal definition of family friendly, then pick one that everyone can agree on. Don't pick one that just fits your world view, and then demand that everyone else accept it or be labeled irrational.

But those movies have "questionable" philosophies as well, from Lion King's reincarnation bent to Mulan dressing in drag :)

Point being, in this case a Christian group is saying a movie is not family friendly because of an "atheism/organized religion is bad" perspective. Not that the movie isn't CHRISTIAN-friendly, which is fairly accurate.

They are saying that atheism = bad for kids (which, let's face it, is what "family friendly" means). That's the problem.

While the term "family friendly" is subjective, surely you understand that there's a difference between a particular person saying "this film isn't right for my family," and saying "this film isn't family friendly," right? One is a term that's specific to one family, the other is a term that's associated with all families, and based on the generally accepted values of what is acceptable for most families in general.

To use your ludicrous "explicit sex" example, if society at large was accepting of it being in "family friendly" films, then no matter how you personally find it offensive, saying that the film is not acceptable to families in general would be incorrect, because families in general are accepting of it.

For example, I may personally find horribly bland and unoriginal scripts unworthy of viewing by my family, but that doesn't mean I'd claim that the film wasn't "family friendly."

[quote[The only reason this film is being "singled out" is because it is currently being marketed. It does not make much sense to bring Narnia into the discussion, since it has already been discussed, at the time of its release. And there were plenty of people at that time who were concerned over that film and its overtly Christian messages.[/quote]
Did any of them claim it wasn't "family friendly"?

Perhaps you shouldn't be guessing at my motivations, but addressing the actual comments made. I'm upset because people are ascribing their own personal religious beliefs to a general and secular term like "family friendly." If people were saying that Narnia wasn't "family friendly" because of it's Christian viewpoint, I'd take them to task for that as well.


[quote]One must not participate in an activity in order to determine its value. People rely on information all the time to help make their own decisions, and that in on way abrogates any responsibility. [quote]
You're right that relying on information provided by others in one way abrogates some responsibility. You're also correct that "if we didn't [abrogate some responsibility] there would be very little progress in the world."

As you point out when you defer to other people's judgment: " I don't need to become a crystal meth user to know that it is a bad idea. I can rely on the information provided by others to help make that decision."

Neither did I, and that's not what irks people about the original email. It's largely equating "family friendly" with a Christian point of view and suggesting that a film with an athiestic point of view is "certainly not a film you want your children to see" that's irking people.

That's pretty much what the email was hoping for. Support for their uninformed opinion from other uninformed people.

The email certainly may have done that. But people are complaining about the actual wording and intent of the email, which even you admit was too much.

Finally, I see that you agree that the email's definition of "family friendly" was wrong. :)

I suspect no one's going to see this film.

I'm not merely an atheist - I'm an anti-theist - and this film, as reportedly shot, holds zero interest for me. It will be nothing more than a fantasy tale festooned with the usual bland blandishments, and utterly stripped of Pullman's themes. The filmmakers have conceded as much.

Oh how I wish this film were of the sort that the Catholic League and other usual suspects might correctly find to be utterly and intractibly opposed to their agendas. But sadly it is not. As noted in the Atlantic article I presume has been discussed in this thread, what we'll get instead is as follows:

Whenever I hear another conservative person claim that liberals want to censor freedom of speech, I'll be sure to bring up this movie and the book. LOL!

I don't think they're saying the film should be outlawed, rather just criticizing it and encouraging others not to go. Happens all the time, or is everyone supposed to love and support everything that's out there?

Personally, after reading a bit more about it and seeing it's PG-13 I'm more interested in checking it out.

Are you talking about the book or movie? Not that it matters, because neither were particularly wonderful, though the movie certainly wasn't Eragon-level bad. I thought the first Narnia flick did it's source material justice. The book and the movie have a lot in common with Chicken Alfredo at Olive Garden; it was an easily digestible meal that you'll forget about half an hour later.

Except for the bad breath.

I've always found Lewis to be a mediocre write, at best. And that's not just looking back in hindsight. I first read Tolkien in junior high twenty years ago and was blown away. Imagine my delight at finding a good friend of his had also written a fantasy series! And then I read it, and realized it wasn't much better than the Dragonlance books the nose-picker next to me was reading. Seventh-grade me wasn't impressed with Lewis, and nothing has changed in the ensuing two decades.

Frankly, if it wasn't for the religious subtext I don't think many folks would even discuss Lewis today. IMO, his sales and legacy are propped up by people who won't let their kids read Harry Potter. Hell, JK Rowling is a better writer than CS Lewis, at least in her latter books. And even on her worst days I'd never call her vision or words bland, boring, and dull like I would Lewis'.

I haven't read Pullman's books, but I think my wife is getting me the trilogy for Christmas (how ironic) so shortly thereafter I'll be able to comment on whether or not he really did write the opposite of Narnia. I guess the opposite would be anti-religion and well written.

Ironically, it's the libs that run the studio that insisted it be edited.

There's good reason for this: they don't want people to find out Pullman's atheist views, which does come out even in the first book. That's a fast way to hurt potential revenue from the movie.

... and I'm not sure studio executives can be described as liberals en masse.

Star Wars is family friendly.... and it features a religion based on midichlorians

This movie has polar bears in war armor fighting it out. Nothing can stop me from going to see a movie that features that.

:thumbsup: Only sensible post in this entire thead.

Especially when atheism is only inherently not friendly to intellect.

Oh wait, that the mantra we generally hear the other way. :lol:

I didn't know about this controversy, or the boycott, and I find it pretty stupid. But I don't find it any more stupid than listening to people in the Narnia threads acto indignant over "Christian" themes, which I thought were so muted that I would not have noticed. I could see being indignant over the fact that it was a pretty poor movie, however. :lol:

I don't know, this just seems like more of the complaining about the rallying of the Christians over stupid things which is really no different than the rallying of the Atheists over stupid things, in my book. :shrug:

Calling his "Dark Materials" atheistic is ridiculous. It actually EXPLICITLY acknowledges that God exists. What it does do is reject organized religious dogma and the view of heaven. In the books, heaven is really a hell. But the viewpoint is pro-actively anti religion, NOT atheistic or agnostic.

Ah, but just imagine how differently we would react if instead of having that, he had a traditional Judeo-Christian view of God. Man, we wouldn't hear a word from anyone. It would just be peace and harmony.

The whole thing on both sides is beyond stupid, imo.

Although I don't agree with Pullman's beliefs, I can respect his opinion and how it is metaphorically presented in his books. I see where the message can actually create a good deal of thoughtful discussion even among Christians.

With that being said, I'm uncomfortable with the way it is marketed to children. Children may process the information differently, and a subject like this challenging a belief taught in our home requires a certain maturity level higher than, say, your average fan of Lion King 1 1/2. I truly believe that is precisely what Pullman is counting on, no matter how much certain anti-conservatives want me to believe otherwise. Therefore, as a parent, I reserve the right to raise my child the way I see fit.

As if raising your children in your religion isn't really the same thing. :shrug:

Exactly. He has every right to tell a story as he wants and you have every right not to see it. There's nothing uncomfortable about it.