Went to see "Paul, The Apostle of Christ"

[carpedm9587]

It also helps with the problem of movies that fluctuate between "What did they just say?" quiet and wake-the-kids loud.

Edit: Another benefit of always-on subtitles is the occasional typos and errors in the subtitles, which can be pretty funny.

I definitely had not thought of THAT! But I think it would distract from my "willing suspension of disbelief." That being said - I'll give it a go.

[Sparko]

I definitely had not thought of THAT! But I think it would distract from my "willing suspension of disbelief." That being said - I'll give it a go.

I find the subtitles to distracting. I start reading them instead of watching the show. Some streaming services and DVRs have an option of "closed captioning on replay" which leaves them off but if you do a replay, like if you missed what they said, it turns them on for the replay.

[DesertBerean]

I find the subtitles to distracting. I start reading them instead of watching the show. Some streaming services and DVRs have an option of "closed captioning on replay" which leaves them off but if you do a replay, like if you missed what they said, it turns them on for the replay.

that's cool...

l

[seer]

The subtitles are not the only issue. I have to admit, when I watch a war movie produced by Mr. Gibson, I admire his ability to make the experience realistic (or as realistic as it is for someone who has never been in that kind of situation). But when I consider watching one of his religiously-themed movies, I cannot help but remember his antisemitic drunken rage. I think he apologized for it, but alcohol reduces inhibitions; it does not create new ideas/thoughts where they did not exist before. That realization interferes with my ability to enjoy or even watch those types of film from him.

It doesn't help that I would have to listen to my wife's nonstop expression of revulsion for the man.

Gibson and his dad were pre Vatican two Catholics, and I don't think they had a high views of Jewish folks. I don't know if he still is though. That does not bear on his film making though, I also really liked his Apocalypto. I also like a lot of the Weinstein films even though he was such a horrible man...

[carpedm9587]

Gibson and his dad were pre Vatican two Catholics, and I don't think they had a high views of Jewish folks. I don't know if he still is though. That does not bear on his film making though, I also really liked his Apocalypto. I also like a lot of the Weinstein films even though he was such a horrible man...

The man strikes me as morally repugnant. I can suspend that when watching a non-religious movie. When watching a religious one, however, the hypocrisy just gets in my way. I don't waste my time watching movies I'm not going to enjoy - whatever the reason might be.



Let me guess...the response will be "morally repugnant according to whom?"

[seer]

Let me guess...the response will be "morally repugnant according to whom?"

You know me so well! But how about a Weinstein, who was very active with gun control making movies with all kinds of "gun violence?" I think hypocrisy and Hollywood are synonymous...

[carpedm9587]

You know me so well! But how about a Weinstein, who was very active with gun control making movies with all kinds of "gun violence?" I think hypocrisy and Hollywood are synonymous...

I'm not seeing a disconnect between someone who advocates for gun control, and someone who makes movies about guns. I have no idea what their motivation is. It could be to emphasize how dangerous guns are, or to capture dollars from people who like action movies. I don't see the message "we should have more guns" when I see an action movie. Someone, however, who spouts antisemitic sentiments and then claims to be a conservative catholic and talks about how serious these Jesus-centered movies should be taken and how much he has to honor the theology...? That's a bit different.

And I think "people" and "hypocrisy" are common bedfellows. Hollywood has no unique claim. They just happen to be more visible, by definition.

[Sparko]

I'm not seeing a disconnect between someone who advocates for gun control, and someone who makes movies about guns.

That pretty much says it all right there, Carp.

smh.

[carpedm9587]

That pretty much says it all right there, Carp.

smh.

Umm...ok...

[Sparko]

Umm...ok...

You don't see any disconnect between someone protesting against guns and making movies that glorify gun violence? If that is the case then you really have no business even discussing gun control. You are clueless.

But then this thread isn't about gun control, so sorry for going off topic.

[carpedm9587]

You don't see any disconnect between someone protesting against guns and making movies that glorify gun violence? If that is the case then you really have no business even discussing gun control. You are clueless.

But then this thread isn't about gun control, so sorry for going off topic.

I don't see any necessary connection between the two. If they make them to glorify guns, conflict. If they make them to show the carnage associated with gun-crimes, no conflict. If they make them to cash in one people's love of high-action movies, no conflict. There may or may not be a conflict - and it's not "in my face."

Someone who preaches/claims "Christian" and devotes their energy to pious movies they carefully "work to make the thelogy right" on, and then blasts antisemitic slurs? Hard for that to be "no conflict."

[Sparko]

I don't see any necessary connection between the two. If they make them to glorify guns, conflict. If they make them to show the carnage associated with gun-crimes, no conflict. If they make them to cash in one people's love of high-action movies, no conflict. There may or may not be a conflict - and it's not "in my face."

Someone who preaches/claims "Christian" and devotes their energy to pious movies they carefully "work to make the thelogy right" on, and then blasts antisemitic slurs? Hard for that to be "no conflict."

You know he was talking about hollywood action movies that glorify guns. Not about documentaries against using guns or about a war. come on, carpe.

And yes making them to cash in on people's love of action movies is a conflict. They are the movies that glorify guns the most. They are making money on the fact that people like to see gun violence and then turn around and say that they are against gun violence. Complete hypocrisy.

As bad as Stallone getting rich off of Rambo movies and then protesting against guns.

[carpedm9587]

You know he was talking about hollywood action movies that glorify guns. Not about documentaries against using guns or about a war. come on, carpe.

You certainly do like to tell people what they think and what they know....

I was not talking about documentaries.

And yes making them to cash in on people's love of action movies is a conflict. They are the movies that glorify guns the most. They are making money on the fact that people like to see gun violence and then turn around and say that they are against gun violence. Complete hypocrisy.

As bad as Stallone getting rich off of Rambo movies and then protesting against guns.

You opinion is duly noted

[rogue06]

You know he was talking about hollywood action movies that glorify guns. Not about documentaries against using guns or about a war. come on, carpe.

And yes making them to cash in on people's love of action movies is a conflict. They are the movies that glorify guns the most. They are making money on the fact that people like to see gun violence and then turn around and say that they are against gun violence. Complete hypocrisy.

As bad as Stallone getting rich off of Rambo movies and then protesting against guns.

What's worse is that most if not all of these celebutards who demand that guns be banned never go anywhere without a phalanx of armed bodyguards. Guards armed with guns. And many even admit that they also own at least one firearm.

But then when they are talking about a need to ban firearms they aren't talking about themselves. They mean you and me. Not the elites who are our "betters."

[Juvenal]

As bad as [Paul] getting rich off of [persecuting Christians] and then [advocating Christianity].

Yup. Works.