Do supernatural movies take away from the spiritual message of Abrahamic faiths?

[YmirGF]

According to your experiences and there are those that aren't arrogant.

Which is precisely why I worded it the way I did. My statement was presented in that way quite deliberately.

It's arrogance to presume this is the totality of a group.

Good thing I didn't say it was, eh?

 

[james bond]

I enjoy a good movie based on Christianity such as The Ten Commandments or one that uses Christian themes such as The Chronicles of Narnia or The Tree of Life. One that was hated was The Last Temptation of Christ. A good movie could inspire conversations about God and Jesus, so it could be positive, i.e. uplifting. Usually, it's for entertainment purposes and not so much religion. In this case, the message is probably not the main point. If done well, then it's a positive.

That said, here's a list of movies with Christian themes with the better ones on top:
The Best Movies with Christian Themes

Or if you want a Christian's review of movies and how they reflect Christian values:
https://christiananswers.net/spotlight/

Even with supernatural movies, I think if done well, then it can still scare us or dissuade us and still not be considered irreverent. Blasphemy is another matter. Probably a fine line.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The sacredness of being connected with divine providence, that is, figures such as angels, prophets, people with divinely inspired foresight.

Ah. I thought all that these figures were pretty ridiculous before, so pretty much any depiction would help my opinion.

... except maybe Russell Crowe's depiction of Noah: I think he was fairly true to the Bible story (or at least as true as you could be when you make a 2-hour movie out of a 2-page story) and I thought it was interesting how he came across as mentally ill. Even when the water started rising like he foretold, he still came across as someone dangerously unhinged. It made me think more about how the prophets described in the Bible would actually come across.

The question poses that could movies such as legion which may not accurately depict angels and/or their behavior and in knowing that, could that take away the essence of spirituality?

I think the time to worry about whether a depiction of angels is accurate is after we've established what angels are really like. If this ever happened, then I missed it.

Now, to be clear when I mean take away I'm referring to the presentation not literally. For example if I watch the movie Legion, does the movie even with its entertainment value does it take away from the essence of what angels truly are?

I haven't seen Legion, but I have seen movies where angels were depicted (e.g. It's a Wonderful Life, Dogma). Like I was getting at earlier, unless you actually know "what angels truly are," you aren't in a position to say whether any particular portrayal is faithful to the "real thing."

 

[LuisDantas]

Um ok...It kills me why you or anyone else participate in these threads if you think ultimately it is stupid.

There is worth in pointing out the silliness of some ideas.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not a huge fan of movies. Almost every one of them has details you can disagree on. Recently I watched a science movie that had qualified scientific advisory, and even it had several details that made me feel it was false. Spiritual movies aren't any different. It's the depth of the director and actors that they can reach that's the problem. With more literal religious beliefs, there's also the problem of competing views as to what constitutes True Religion X. Abrahamic religions are very divided in their views. If you take an "average" Abrahamic from one country and another you're going to have conflicts of views that when spoken seem to often spoil the soup for both of them.

It sure seems like the majority of Hollywood films focus on a character who repents and/or saves the world alone, without ever praying to God in any form.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It sure seems like the majority of Hollywood films focus on a character who repents and/or saves the world alone, without ever praying to God in any form.

What proportion of movies would have to pander to your religion for you to find it acceptable?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Abrahamic religions are very divided in their views. If you take an "average" Abrahamic from one country and another you're going to have conflicts of views that when spoken seem to often spoil the soup for both of them.

This is a really good point. Even I, as a non-believer, can watch a religiously-themed movie, watch part and realize "Well, they just lost the [Catholics] with that idea/sentiment." And where I explicitly placed "[Catholics]" you could obviously insert any number of branches of Christianity, depending on the circumstance.

With science in movies, they either get it right, or you have to be willing to operate in "suspension of disbelief" mode for the movie. And because religious faith ends up being all about belief, suspension of disbelief becomes a lot harder. Religious people are more apt to just dismiss the movie entirely - as can be evidenced when a movie comes out and an entire group makes a statement against it.

Ever hear of groups of science-aficionados banding together to boycott a movie that got its scientific facts wrong? Or a group of hackers joining forces to condemn a movie that butchers the crap out of tech-details? I know I never have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ever hear of groups of science-aficionados banding together to boycott a movie that got its scientific facts wrong? Or a group of hackers joining forces to condemn a movie that butchers the crap out of tech-details? I know I never have.

Not boycott, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson famously complained about how James Cameron got the stars wrong in Titanic until Cameron finally fixed them for the remastered DVD.

 

[Quintessence]

Christians may want to consider themselves fortunate that renditions of their religious traditions in entertainment media are generally respectful and at least attempt to stay true to the source material. The same cannot be said for Paganisms (whether old or new); our stuff is bastardized left, right, and center. One can try to find humor in it, or simply not take it seriously. Which can be tough when you listen to an interview of a series creator and their words make apparent their ignorance of you even existing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not boycott, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson famously complained about how James Cameron got the stars wrong in Titanic until Cameron finally fixed them for the remastered DVD.

Constellations and the like I'm guessing? Man... what a thing to complain about. There are loads more gaffs that actually break canon physical law in all sorts of high profile movies. Though I suppose star positions are a bit more verifiably "set in stone" - or at least, what they would have been during the time of the Titanic's fateful journey. Meaning you can easily get other people to agree with your point versus a situational issue where no one can really know all the variables.

Anyway... I stand (at least partially) corrected. Thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Constellations and the like I'm guessing?

Yeah. The stars were just made up.

Man... what a thing to complain about. There are loads more gaffs that actually break canon physical law in all sorts of high profile movies. Though I suppose star positions are a bit more verifiably "set in stone" - or at least, what they would have been during the time of the Titanic's fateful journey. Meaning you can easily get other people to agree with your point versus a situational issue where no one can really know all the variables.

Anyway... I stand (at least partially) corrected. Thanks.

Tyson brought it up after hearing Cameron go on about the attention to detail that went into the movie... which was true in terms of the sets, props, costumes, etc., but apparentky not the stars, despite the fact that they could have easily punched the date, time, latitude & longitude into a number of astronomical tools to get the exact sky over the North Atlantic on the night of the sinking.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ever hear of groups of science-aficionados banding together to boycott a movie that got its scientific facts wrong? Or a group of hackers joining forces to condemn a movie that butchers the crap out of tech-details? I know I never have.

Boycott? Never. Poke fun of the "physics" and laugh at what they get wrong? Absolutely.



Here's one of my favorite sites, on insultingly stupid movie physics:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah. The stars were just made up.


Tyson brought it up after hearing Cameron go on about the attention to detail that went into the movie... which was true in terms of the sets, props, costumes, etc., but apparentky not the stars, despite the fact that they could have easily punched the date, time, latitude & longitude into a number of astronomical tools to get the exact sky over the North Atlantic on the night of the sinking.

I am always amused at Hollywood's seemingly absolute desire to go all OCD on points that few people care about, but simply ignore major gaffes when it comes to actual reality itself, especially physics of Stuff.

Take Breaking Bad as a case in point-- the chemistry and physics of that series was supposedly good... yet? Upon close inspection, it was so far off as to be no better than the 1960's TV show of Batman...

You just have to kind of ignore physics, when watching movies.

Just as you have to ignore religion too, and politics, and actual human relationships, and history, and ..... !

That's the beauty of Fiction, I suppose. It's pretty much all Fantasy, All the Time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Boycott? Never. Poke fun of the "physics" and laugh at what they get wrong? Absolutely.

Believe me, I understand this sentiment completely. In fact, my wife likes to claim that no one can ruin a movie during the walk out of the theater like I can. Picking apart the unlikely/impossible bits... even many times still liking the movie overall. She always asks with this air of incredulity: "So, did you even like the movie?"

 

[QuestioningMind]

The sacredness of being connected with divine providence, that is, figures such as angels, prophets, people with divinely inspired foresight. The question poses that could movies such as legion which may not accurately depict angels and/or their behavior and in knowing that, could that take away the essence of spirituality? Now, to be clear when I mean take away I'm referring to the presentation not literally. For example if I watch the movie Legion, does the movie even with its entertainment value does it take away from the essence of what angels truly are?

Not sure how you can take away from the essence of a fictional being. If the bible wants to depict fictional angels in one way, that's fine. If movies want to depict these fictional beings in another way, that's fine too.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Not sure how you can take away from the essence of a fictional being. If the bible wants to depict fictional angels in one way, that's fine. If movies want to depict these fictional beings in another way, that's fine too.

You would have to demonstrate how they're fictional...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You would have to demonstrate how they're fictional...

Not really: the fact that no one can demonstrate these even exist at all, is kinda proof that they are fictional.

It is kind of automatic, here-- without substantial proof that angels are real, they are by default, not-real.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Not really: the fact that no one can demonstrate these even exist at all, is kinda proof that they are fictional.

It is kind of automatic, here-- without substantial proof that angels are real, they are by default, not-real.

You are postulating a claim of non-existence....Nobody here has said anything whether they are fictional or non-fictional. I cannot prove dark matter exists but there is speculation that it exists. I cannot prove that multiple universes exist but there are those that believe they exist. The same notion of speculative thought applies in metaphysics.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are postulating a claim of non-existence....Nobody here has said anything whether they are fictional or non-fictional. I cannot prove dark matter exists but there is speculation that it exists. I cannot prove that multiple universes exist but there are those that believe they exist. The same notion of speculative thought applies in metaphysics.

No-- I am re-stating the default: things do not exist, until (if ever) said things are shown to exist, with facts, pictures, appearances, etc, etc, etc.

Is there a pink teapot in orbit around the planet Mercury? Yes? No? If I claim there is-- it's up to me to prove it with facts.

Otherwise? The default is that there is no teapot.

Same goes for "angels" and "daemons" and other supernatural claims.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You would have to demonstrate how they're fictional...

Actually you'd have to demonstrate that they are not. There's just as much verifiable evidence for angels are there is for magical unicorns. Now if I claim that magical unicorns are REAL then it's up to me to provide the evidence to support my claim. It's NOT up to you to provide evidence that magical unicorns are fictional. That would be silly.