Skip to comments.EVERYTHING EXCEPT MECCA AND MUSLIMS WILL BE DESTROYED IN HOLLYWOOD’S “2012” MOVIE
Posted on 11/03/2009 8:27:14 AM PST by Psion
2012: Politically Correct Apocalypse
Statue of Christ the Redeemer Crumbles
The Kabaa Remains Intact
In Roland Emmerichs latest film, you will see the destruction of St. Peters Cathedral, the Vatican, Notre Dame, and Westminster Abby.
Youll also see the collapse of the White House, the Capitol, Big Ben, and the House of Representatives.
But 2012,the new film which purports the show the end of world, does not contain any scenes of Saudis being swallowed up by desert storms or Dubai being sucked into a sea of oil.
Yes, all the great structures of Western civiliation and Christianity will be swept away but the monuments of Islam will remain.
The filmmakers admit that they were afraid to depict the destruction of Mecca and the Kaaba for fear of Islamic retaliation.
Emmerich, who is well known for decimating famed landmarks in his The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day, said that that he had no qualms about destruction of the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro because he is "against organised religion."
But remained fearful of depicting anything that must offend the religious sensibilities of Muslims.
The 53-year-old Emmerich admitted that the original screenplay called for a sequence in which the Kaaba disintegrates to dust but realized that such a scene could result in the end of his professional career, if not his demise.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelastcrusade.org ...
I can’t wait for this to made fun of in South Park.
What a coward. Pick on Christians, women, children, the handicapped, the elderly . . . anyone who can’t fight back.
Don’t forget the animals too.
What a real man you are Roland. Congrats on the career move, it’s all worth it I’m sure.
Another reason I am skipping 2012. Just look at the cast. It is straight out of Hollywood Moonbat central.
Hey, Rolly! Take the advice of Valerie Jarret: speak truth to power!
these muslims must have been infiltrating the media industries for a generation to be able to get such ready use out of it.
Given that this movie has a trifecta of political idiots in it (Woody Harrelson, John Cusack, and Danny Glover), I guess I’ll have to miss it.
I give “2012” the Movie....several thumbs down....and assorted other hand gestures.
What’s the big deal?
It seems to me that if the producders want to stay real, then yes...
Destroy all that is good and leave evil.
Isn’t that the meaning of apocalypse?
Leaving muslims in this world realy truly is the end of the world.
what an azzhat
I was going to go see this until I read this
I was going to turn a blind eye to the cast and take my kid to see it. Not now, what a bunch of wusses.
FWIW, I know three men named Roland, two of them are witches.
My question is do they not show Muslim landmarks at all or do they just never show them being destroyed?
Forget all this...how can anyone stomach a film in which the world ends, but John Cusack survives!
Reason enough for me to skip this tripe. Just like “The Day After The Day After The Day After Tomorrow”
Why people make movies like this is beyond me...actuallyI know, it’s all about money but what I can’t fathom is why anyone would want to the destruction of earth.
I hate movies like this. We have enough violence in real life.
The cast listing suck also.
At least he is honest. Better than giving some phony pc cover. Muslims don’t respect free speech.
My grandmother was against going to movies because they were “immoral and represented poor values and she didn’t want to help send money to people that made their living from that lifestyle”...Now I find I am in COMPLETE agreement with her!
I was going to go see that too — and I never go to the movies. It looked like a good disaster movie on the commercial. Oh well.
Cowardly or not....it is a sad commentary on the power of Islam to intimidate western culture. No one wants to risk the ire or in any way offending the Muslims.
British school children are not taught about the holocaust because it will offend Muslim students since they don’t believe it happened.
They are diminishing us even without terrorist attacks.
the movie is about the end of CIVILIZATION... so the muzzies are not effected.
Another movie not to watch.
Dang maybe we really need to start throwing bombs and beheading people if we want some respect.
i ha d been looking foward to seeing it. not anymore.
Here is another fine product from our friends in Hollywood:
Here is another fine product from our friends in Hollywood:
OK, silly question, and maybe we need to wait for the movie to come out ...
Does the movie show these places and their monuments surviving - is the visual image that Mecca stands amidst the ruins?
Or do they simply choose not to actively show them being destroyed?
There is a huge difference. The movie cannot possibly depict every single religious place of consequence on the earth being destroyed. If they choose to visualize some and not others with the implication being that everything is gone then I think this is a big to-do about nothing. If they show Mecca standing when all else falls then we have some legitimate concerns.
You didn’t read the article.
“The 53-year-old Emmerich admitted that the original screenplay called for a sequence in which the Kaaba disintegrates to dust but realized that such a scene could result in the end of his professional career, if not his demise.”
What a hypocritical chickensh*t.
“What a hypocritical chickensh*t.”
Is this bad that Hollywood might open some eyes?
In the previews I did see the dome of St Peter’s crashing to the ground. I thought I noticed a hugh group of people at the Dome of the Rock, but I could have been mistaken.
I did read he article - but I still contend there is a huge difference between not showing something being destroyed and showing something standing when all else is destroyed.
Seriously - this is what you people have to get upset about?
This is NOT in fact a Christian nation, and it is pure folly to expect society at large to respect and defend the Truth. Hollywood will never, as a whole, accept, defend, or promote the Truth. Why do people allow themselves to get upset when a secular entity acts ... secular?
Seriously, Hollywood's leading wuss. The only other "tough guy" role I remember him being in was in Con Air, where I literally laughed out loud at him trying to be taken seriously.
“This is NOT in fact a Christian nation,”
Yes it is, and Israel is a Jewish Nation...Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq etc. are Islamic nations.
saw the article. no way it recoups that money domestically.
Because they act selectively secular.
We are just exercising our First Amendment rights (assuming we still have those), to voice concern, disdain, and assemble together against such a movie.
History shows you very wrong about this not being a Christian nation -- who told you that anyway, Obama?
Thanks for posting, another movie I won’t be patronizing.
I wonder if people realize what pussies they are when they rip on safe targets but admit to explicitly avoiding supposedly tough ones because they’ll get their asses kicked.
I mean, when I see this kind of crap, I think “pussy” and I also think “bully”. Because bullies only pick on the people they are pretty certain won’t fight back or they can beat.
These people need to be called on the carpet just to be labeled as hypocrites and the little pussies they are.
Me too. It makes life a lot simpler when you just make a clean sweep of it and don’t see any of them.
I contend that history shows me very right about this not being a Christian nation. There is a difference between a nation largely of Christians free to practice their religion, and a nation that is driven and controlled by religious precepts.
Iran is a Muslim nation - Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation - the religion and the government are inseparable and indistinguishable.
Separating politics from religion was the very first amendment - topic one in the Bill of Rights.
If you choose not to see a movie just because they choose not to show the destruction of Mecca that is a decision you are free to make, but to me the logic seems rather silly. If you are going to make choices based on religious principles about which movies you see and don’t see - I would think that a movie about the end of the world based on supposed Mayan prophecies would already be off your list.
So, you wouldn’t have protested a movie promoting false Mayan prophecies... But now some of you are upset because it does not actively show Mecca crumbling... Seriously?
Maybe they didn’t think the destruction of Mecca was a big deal. Kinda like when a tornado hits a mobile home and does $10 worth of damage.
I think you’re splitting hairs to say we’re not a Christian nation; our government may not endorse a particular religion, but many of our Founders were, and our culture is very much rooted in Christian belief.
Again, you miss my point about selective secularism. By not giving equal treatment to Muslim icons, the producers of this movie are making a political statement. Perhaps if this were the ONLY movie to show selective secularism, it wouldn’t be a big deal; people could generally see it for entertainment purposes if they wished. But destruction of ONLY Western religious icons is a trend in Hollywood. For those of us concerned about preserving our culture, we’ll decide what’s “silly” or not.
Talk yourself into justifying your outrage all you want.
It is far from splitting hairs - the false notion that this is a Christian nation is one of the great falsehoods of the modern era.
I still find it amusing that many of you thought the movie might be worth seeing when it was ‘just’ a movie about Mayan prophecies - I guess those are OK for the staunch Christian to entertain - we can immerse ourselves in one false religion and the prophecies thereof, but we draw the line when they won’t destroy all religions equally. People here don;t seem upset that they are destroying Christian relics, just that they don’t take Mecca with them when they do.
This is not a Christian sentiment - it is an anti-Islamic sentiment - and there is a difference.