Posted on 11/13/2009 10:27:18 AM PST by NYer
Ping!
All I know is that Danny Glover plays the president, so the casting was perfect.
Easily recognizable land marks.
The sign of the Cross is because there is no visual for the viewer to know that people are praying.
And finally its just a movie.
Roland has said that he is against organized religion. This makes him a bigot.
He has also said that he considered having the destruction of the muslims big rock in his film but reconsidered when advised that he may have a fatwa against his life.
So he is an anti-Christian bigot and a flaming coward to boot.
Boycott him AND the studio.
The fact that they fill the trailer with shots of his attacks on Christianity is not an “accident”. Even if you do not attend the film, you are still likely to be subjected to the trailer on tv and in the theaters.
Boycott the studio too.
—I know I won’t be going to see it because as reported here on FR last week, the producer didn’t put in Mecca being destroyed because he was afraid of Islamic retaliation-—
Birth of A Nation was just a movie.
The Eternal Jew was just a movie.
Emmerich’s movies are boring for anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Outrageous! What cowards these bastards are. Try showing Mohammed’s face on the silver screen and see the cinemas go up in flames and be prepared to read the obituaries of the producers and actors.
Correct.
I seldom if ever see anything coming out of Hollywood that shows Christians in a good light.
You will occasionally, occasionally see a movie that has a good message but any movie that has any explicitly Christian character in it, that character is usually a negative one. Lampooned if you’re lucky, but usually he turns out to be the serial killer or child molester or backstabbing sell-out in the story. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie in which an explicitly Christian character was the good guy.
Its not just about Catholics, although Catholics make a good target, they’ve got all the cool and well-known icons that Hollywood loves to use and abuse, it makes for easy cinematic symbolism. So Catholics become Hollywood’s proxy for Christianity in general. But they don’t like any of us. I’m getting to the point that I don’t like any of them, either.
People tend to forget those movies when they want to make a point.
"...the movie hasn’t been so much written as plotted on a graph — complete with national landmarks and religious icons torn to bits. No Muslim symbols, though; as Emmerich has honestly and gracelessly admitted, he dislikes all religions, but gave Islam a pass for fear of a fatwa on his head."
- '2012' movie review: Roland Emmerich ends the world ... again
Good point!
We as Catholics are the majority which is probably why they used the Catholics to represent in this movie. Quite frankly this could happen in 2012 does indeed happen. I am kinda impressed that they care about our religion to even speak about it. Islam religon would not be used because NOBODY would identity with it and who would understand what was going on if they were trying to show their religion. It would be so stupid to use Islam a religion nobody knows.
And a bad one, to boot. Why, even the Kansas City (Falling) Star had a blurb that said basically that you end up rooting for the apocalypse over the characters. That coming from a paper that never met a liberal person or idea it wouldn't endorse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.