Comments on: Hollywood to America: You Must Watch Our Smut

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:01:52 +0000

Copyright infringment is the excuse. I always thought that was to stop others from taking part or all of a content and using it as their own. Now the court as decided it covers the terms of legitimate contracts.

I guess being a judge requires a suspension of disbelief.

Congress needs to redo the copyright laws to overturn the activist judges that have been warping their intent.

By: jcb

jcb — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:30:59 +0000

At what point did you get the idea that I’m a card carrying member of the AFA?

Whether Hollywood succeeds or fails, or the Christian-movie-making industry succeeds or fails is entirely irrelevant to my life. I don’t have time for movies, smut or no.

However, as an opinions journalist, I have opinions and generally it’s my job to comment on things, particularly when they are stupid. This qualifies.

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:53:42 +0000

Mr. Bambenek, have you chosen to invest in any firms that are part of the “Christian movie-making industry”?

By: jcb

jcb — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:24:21 +0000

That’s not a jab, you could argue I make a moral case against abortion, because I do. I make no such statement about homosexuality, I simply state that the right to choose the gender of one’s sexual partners is hailed. Any moral connotation you derive from that is your own creation.

The rhetorical device I was choosing was making a play on the “right to choose” so often bandied about in our society. We have the right to choose this or choose that, but then all the sudden some choices must not be allowed…

By: Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV

Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:21:15 +0000

“Lastly, I’m not so sure where you get the idea I’m taking a jab at homosexuals.”

Right here, second sentence: “The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one’s sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right.”

You place the sentence regarding sexual preference immediately after the sentence about abortion, of which you obviously don’t approve. The parallel sentence structure implies a similar meaning. The jab at abortion carries over to sexual preference and then on to adultery.

I only bring up the murdering children bit because the mere mention of abortion distracts from an otherwise concise and well written piece on Hollywood. I’m not critcizing your views on abortion (that’s for another debate); I’m criticizing your rhetorical device.

By: American Conservative Daily

American Conservative Daily — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:42:33 +0000

Hollywood To End Censorship Of Their Work?
Here is an interesting post from John Bambenek over at Stop the ACLU entitled “Hollywood to America: You Must Watch Our Smut”A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize th…

By: jcb

jcb — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:01:25 +0000

First, the idea that Christians won’t buy Hollywood films is something I directly address in my piece, that’s not the point. It’s commentary on Hollywood putting principle above economics, that they are actually driving away customers at this lawsuit designed to “protect their interest”. People often say there is no culture war, it’s only the one “we” make. This is an incident to turn that around. To be honest, I’m not one of those evil Hollywood types. I think they have a different set of values and most of the stuff they produce is crap, but I’m not one of those who boycotts them outright (and I wouldn’t call choosing a competitor a boycott, per se. There’s nothing “boycott”-like about choosing a product you’d prefer anyway).

Lastly, I’m not so sure where you get the idea I’m taking a jab at homosexuals. Sure, I call it murdering a child, but that’s because that is precisely what abortion is, murder. You may disagree with that, but I’m not going to candy-coat the taking of human life to make it more appetizing for people.

By: Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV

Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:24:13 +0000

If you hate Hollywood so much, boycott their films! If you object to sex, violence, and swearing – all of which are prevalent of our society and therefore certainly relevant in films that depict reality – don’t watch movies that contain them! I’m sure the studios won’t miss you. The choice is yours, and if filmmakers don’t want their works censored for your benefit, that’s their business. Watch those insipid Kirk Cameron flicks instead. Like Mr. Meatbrain said, if they find enough support to survive in the film industry, that’s great.

Also, while I’m here, let me ask you this: Was it really necessary to work in the phrase “murder their child” or a not-too-subtle jab at homosexuals in an opinion piece on Hollywood? Let’s stay on point.

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:35:00 +0000

“It isn’t enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage…”
Wrong. No one forces a consumer to watch anything. If a consumer does not wish to see what is in a movie, there is nothing preventing him or her from watching something else… or going out for a nice walk.

“Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.”
It will be viable if it produces a product consumers want. If not, the “Christian movie-making industry” will wither and die. If the kinds of movies Bambenek wants to see can survive in the marketplace, great! We’ve got ourselves another choice. If not, then the market will have spoken.

I’d certainly like someone to explain why the first solution a “Christian” thinks of in these situations is all to often the censoring or altering of other people’s works, rather than the creation of something original. One would almost suspect that the Bambeneks of the world don’t believe that the kinds of movies they want to see would be commercially viable.

By: gfactor

gfactor — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:29:30 +0000

“Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?”

I feel sorry for you.

A recent law was passed allowing this sort of activity, but not for rental films. Companies can enter this business only to make movies for the heads of households. Yes hollywood is powerful. Welcome to the power of property.