Went to see "Paul, The Apostle of Christ"

[carpedm9587]

Yup. Works.

The story of Paul is a conversion story. The story of Stallone, not so much.

I think we have to leave room for people having a genuine conversion or change of heart. People DO change.

[Juvenal]

The story of Paul is a conversion story. The story of Stallone, not so much.

Are you suggesting Stallone was always opposed to gun violence?

[Sparko]

Yup. Works.

Paul changed. He went around admitting what he did and regretting it. And he never "got rich" persecuting Christians.

I can understand if someone says, "hey I USED to make a living promoting guns and violence, but I have changed. I was wrong. I apologize for who I was. I am now totally against guns. Any royalties I still make of of those movies I am donating to the antigun cause"

But that isn't what they do. They still make movies and tv shows about gun violence while at the same time denouncing it in public. That is hypocrisy.

[Sparko]

The story of Paul is a conversion story. The story of Stallone, not so much.

I think we have to leave room for people having a genuine conversion or change of heart. People DO change.

As I said above.

[Sparko]

Are you suggesting Stallone was always opposed to gun violence?

here is a story about Stallone. It contains the F-word:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/rambo-...ood?ref=scroll

Basically it says he



Yet he still made movie after movie glorifying guns, even up to the present day.

To me that is hypocrisy.

[carpedm9587]

Are you suggesting Stallone was always opposed to gun violence?

I don't know what his stance is. However, I beleive he continues to produce movies with a heavy action theme.

[carpedm9587]

here is a story about Stallone. It contains the F-word:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/rambo-...ood?ref=scroll

Basically it says he



Yet he still made movie after movie glorifying guns, even up to the present day.

To me that is hypocrisy.

Clearly it is. However, I draw a bit more of a line between the world of fantasy and the world of reality. "Glorifying guns" is an interpretation, maybe an effect - it is not (necessarily) an intention. I can make a horrow/slasher movie without advocating for serial killers. I can make a bank-heist movie without advocating for thieves. I can make an action movie without advocating for guns. The world of fantasy is where we can escape - where we can exorcise (or exercise) our little "fear" button without risk. The willing suspension of disbelief takes us to places we tend to not be able to go in the real world - the middle of a war, the middle of a street gang fight, the middle of a bank robbery, the middle of space, the middle of a historical event, etc.

Likewise, someone can make a movie about the person of Jesus and the history of that period without preaching or advocating for Christianity. But that is not what Gibson is doing. He has said as much that his movies are to put forward the Christian message, and that he works hard to accurately reflect the complex theology. That is a statement of intent. For that intent to come from someone who has made the anti-semitic comments he has made is overt hypocrisy.

By comparison, Stallone has made is position in the real world on guns clear (I now know). I have never seen an interview with him in which he talks about how he wants his pictures to push forward the gun message/agenda, or teach people about the danger/risk of guns, etc. He just makes action movies.

I see a significant difference between the two.

[Sparko]

Clearly it is. However, I draw a bit more of a line between the world of fantasy and the world of reality. "Glorifying guns" is an interpretation, maybe an effect - it is not (necessarily) an intention. I can make a horrow/slasher movie without advocating for serial killers. I can make a bank-heist movie without advocating for thieves. I can make an action movie without advocating for guns. The world of fantasy is where we can escape - where we can exorcise (or exercise) our little "fear" button without risk. The willing suspension of disbelief takes us to places we tend to not be able to go in the real world - the middle of a war, the middle of a street gang fight, the middle of a bank robbery, the middle of space, the middle of a historical event, etc.

Likewise, someone can make a movie about the person of Jesus and the history of that period without preaching or advocating for Christianity. But that is not what Gibson is doing. He has said as much that his movies are to put forward the Christian message, and that he works hard to accurately reflect the complex theology. That is a statement of intent. For that intent to come from someone who has made the anti-semitic comments he has made is overt hypocrisy.

By comparison, Stallone has made is position in the real world on guns clear (I now know). I have never seen an interview with him in which he talks about how he wants his pictures to push forward the gun message/agenda, or teach people about the danger/risk of guns, etc. He just makes action movies.

I see a significant difference between the two.

Generally in horror movies, the serial killers or monsters are the bad guys and are defeated. So no they are not glorifying serial killers. If the movie or TV show (like Dexter) did make the serial killer the star, then yeah, it would be glorifying a serial killer. Generally in the action flicks, the good guys use guns to pretty much blow away bad guys left and right. Sure the bad guys use guns too, but the fact that the good guys are using such weapons does glorify them. Makes them look good, promotes using guns as a solution to problems, etc. Makes people feel good about their use. "Cool! Did you see that? Blam, he blew his head off!" - then they make tie-in toys with toy guns and sell them to kids and video games where you get to shoot the bad guys yourself and play the hero.

So don't try to argue that Hollywood doesn't glorify gun violence.

If Hollywood truly thought that the solution to crime was without gun violence, then they would script that into their movies.

[carpedm9587]

Generally in horror movies, the serial killers or monsters are the bad guys and are defeated. So no they are not glorifying serial killers. If the movie or TV show (like Dexter) did make the serial killer the star, then yeah, it would be glorifying a serial killer. Generally in the action flicks, the good guys use guns to pretty much blow away bad guys left and right. Sure the bad guys use guns too, but the fact that the good guys are using such weapons does glorify them. Makes them look good, promotes using guns as a solution to problems, etc. Makes people feel good about their use. "Cool! Did you see that? Blam, he blew his head off!" - then they make tie-in toys with toy guns and sell them to kids and video games where you get to shoot the bad guys yourself and play the hero.

So don't try to argue that Hollywood doesn't glorify gun violence.

If Hollywood truly thought that the solution to crime was without gun violence, then they would script that into their movies.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.