So, An Inconvenient Truth and Sicko are comedy's? Gee, all, those other people must have it wrong .

Pandering in the movie, let's see:

• Any jewish folks in this?
• Any other religions?
  
• How about any non-white christians?

then, of course, there's arkalmighty.com

Not that I object to Hollywood putting up a craiglist for churches, Still, it's interesting that they didn't publicize this at synagogues, mosques, in fact, at any non-christian houses of worship. Wonder why?

And, do remember, I said they attempted to pander. I specifically said they hadn't succeeded. They were too timid by far. The box office receipts will prove that

Perhaps, some bright sosh students will pick up an easy thesis collecting data doing exit polls on theater goers. The results would be interesting.

Hee Hee Hee

" The box office receipts will prove that"

Results are in, Evan's Ark sank at the box office. Seems the target demographic prefers snuff films. Perhaps the next big thing will be the Amalkite genocide. Lots of blood, guts, and gore. Should be boffo! Phineas might also be good, blood, guts, gore, and opportunities for gratuitous semi naked ladies in seductive poses a la the orgy scene in the "Ten Commandments."

Sickday, I think you nailed it. It does not seem like a liberal v conservative, or fundie vs secular, but more a plastic vs real divide we are talking about.

crunchyfrog, I'll take a shot at answering the question you seem to want answered so badly:

We're a little tired of bad entertainment. Not specifically Christian-oriented bad entertainment, because we all know there's plenty of it for all walks of life, but just bad entertainment in general. This includes any and all movies/books/TV shows/art/hell, dance routines based on the bathroom humor to be found within any topic, including handicapped people, the mentally retarded, children, old people, racial stereotypes, sexual orientation, ethnic stereotypes, mother/father stereotypes, weddings, money, animal husbandry . . . and, yeah, religion.

There have been a few comedies out recently that take a topic and actually comment on it in a humorous fashion, tongue firmly in the ol' cheek, and - surprise of surprises - they are actually funny. Nobody expects your summer comedy to win an Oscar, we just expect it to be, you know, funny. And when you're not funny, and in order to do so you had to take a story that matters deeply to a lot of people and shove as many fart jokes as possible into it, it's offensive. Not necessarily to religion, but to the movie-watching populace in general.

Nobody's saying they shouldn't keep making them, because I suppose someone's watching them. But I think the majority of posters who object to it find it offensive that the entertainment industry thinks we don't need a story anymore. Just an old one. A really old one. From the Bible, say. And poop jokes. Lots of those.

What I wouldn't give for a well written Tracey/Hepburnesque comedy.

I don't know. It'd be pretty terrible to hear fart and pop jokes in such a comedy. And how many current writers know how to write a comedy without fart and/or poop jokes?

Nobody said either of those movies were comedies. However, those movies were targeted to a specific audience, and nobody seemed to have a problem with that. Again, confusion, confusion, confusion.

So, are we 100% SURE there are no jewish characters in this movie? I mean, how would we know for sure a character is jewish unless he/she states as much or is some horrible caricature? Did we not notice that GOD HIMSELF is played by an African-American actor? So, the unanswered question remains: oh, elusive "pandering", wherefore art thou? Certainly not in the link to arkalmighty.com, which really adds nothing to the "pandering" argument.

So, we reach the final truth: we're happy to suspend our disbelief on whether obvious targeting to a certain specific audience (women, minorities, males 18-34, etc) is "pandering", but if that audience just happens to be Christians... whoa nelly... there's goes all common sense and rationality, right out the window...

So, you need to understand what you have implied by your above post: you've implies that, as a culture, it's OK for us all to agree that fart jokes can be funny or unfunny depending on the audience or the context or the target audience, etc (you can't actually state that fart jokes are inherently unfunny unless you're willing to put ALL forms of humor through some kind of arbitrary humor-rating process).

But it's NOT OK for us to use that same exact rationale (what's "stupid" to you may be "hysterical" to your neighbor) if the subject matter is in any way, shape or form based on an idea that comes to us originally from religion. In fact, it goes straight to the "offensive" bucket, with no chance for analysis. Cuz, religion is, y'know, "sacred". And 'cuz people, as we all know, have no criteria whatsoever when it comes to "sacred". 'Cuz it's, like, the dark ages.

Really? Are you sure that's what you want to imply?

So, their sin was attempting to pander, rather than actual pandering. So that's... what? misdemeanor pandering, rather than aggravated pandering?

Hee hee hee.

The main sin was making a sucky movie when they had the budget to make a good one. They could have made this one for a third of the cost. After all, how difficult is it to create fart special effects? Do you think the tens of millions they spent on live animals was a good investment? A couple of hundred grand for a better script would have been smarter.

Attempted pandering is a felony in Hollywood, just like in the political arena. Pandering, like farting, is pass/fail. They failed.

The aggravation is added because they were too stupid to hit every place of worship in the USA, instead of only churches. If the campaign was spread instead of exclusive, there was nothing in this movie that any of congregation could have objected to except its general imbecility.The really amazing thing is that the full campaign would have cost $20000-$40000 more. we're talking postage and email for crying out loud.

All too often Hollywood producers show how little backbone and imagination they have. I didn't like whatisface's The Passion. But, damn, he went at it hammer and tongs and produced the movie his whacked version of Christianity envisioned. His target audience ate it up with a bloody spoon. Doesn't matter whether I liked it or not.

On a lighter note, Oh, God! from the '80s achieved the same kind of success. If you haven't seen a Veggie Tales, looking at one is worth it. Each one is clinic on how to pull this kind of story off. Be careful. Too many Veggies are bad for an adult's mental health.

Bad movies have their place. It's right beside cheap hookers. Paying too much for one or the other is a sin.

Hee Hee Hee

I personally don't have any idea whether they were 'pandering' to their Christian audience, but the review seems to imply that there was no attempt within the movie to display the flood/Noah story as anything but good-natured hijinks on the part of God. I am a little sick of Christianity-as-entertainment, because, for Chrissakes, it's a religion, not a popcorn basket. I'm not even a Christian and I think it's somewhat offensive to take stories that are supposed to be hallmarks of faith and dumb them down for a summer blockbuster. I don't think that sort of thing is 'pandering' to the Christian audience. I do think that avoiding any sort of hard question in a comedy about a difficult story probably is. Hell, look at Knocked Up. It's a comedy about unplanned pregnancy, of all the unfunny topics, and they managed to both comment on the weird moralities of the situation and be funny at the same time. Why couldn't they have raised the whole why-is-God-doing-this-destruct­ive-thing question, and be funny? Because they couldn't. Because the Christian audience they expected to come enjoy this movie with their kids would have been offended, and they would have lost money. And that IS pandering.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the movie is meant to teach Christians, or to teach Christianity. We don't expect our movies to be exact historical replicas, and certainly not our comedies. They'd be a lot more interesting if they did, but that's beside the point. The point is that this particular story is rife with questions - the little ones are sure to ask them - and instead of broaching even one, they did the sunshine-and-bunnies routine. Easter's about eggs! Christmas is about Santa Claus! And Noah is about Steve Carell forced to grow a long beard. It's like Diet Coke Christianity.

And, for the record, 'fart jokes' is my all-around reach statement for cheap humor. Sometimes a well-placed fart is funny. Most of the time it's because the comedy writer couldn't come up with a good joke. And when I use it in a generalized fashion like that, please take it to mean cheap humor. Don't bother to dissect it. I mean, really. You're standing up for fart jokes? I'm sure they are comforted by your support.

As for the sacredness of religion - I don't mean to say that we should not make fun of it, or that we should not see the inherantly funny aspects of it, because that's what humor and satire are for, to make us laugh at ourselves, even the things we take seriously. There is a difference between sophisticated humor and dumb humor. There's even a difference between dumb comedy blockbuster humor. There's a huge difference between Soul Plane and 40-Year-Old Virgin. There's a huge difference between Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Monty Python. There's an immense difference between Evan Almighty and Dogma.

You can't satirize a subject unless you understand it. By blatantly avoiding what they understand about the Noah story, they manage to both be unfunny and avoid offending those who can't take a joke at their religion's expense. And that is disappointing and pandering, respectively.

crunchyfrog:

So, we reach the final truth: we're happy to suspend our disbelief on whether obvious targeting to a certain specific audience (women, minorities, males 18-34, etc) is "pandering", but if that audience just happens to be Christians... whoa nelly... there's goes all common sense and rationality, right out the window...

Again, you miss the point. We don't mind movies targeting a Christian audience (anyone have a problem with the Nativity Story?), we mind stories that should have a few difficult questions in them stripped of those difficult questions because they might, possibly, offend the Christian audience.

Nobody strips a romantic comedy of stereotypes about women, even though it targets women. We all know that there isn't a 'black' comedy out there that doesn't offer up stereotypes about black people. And seriously, you couldn't have offended the audience of Dude, Where's My Car if you sobered them up first and started trashing their mothers. So why can't we see a movie with a Christian story that goes ahead and makes fun of Christians?

Also, I'm a little confused - why do I care that God is depicted by Morgan Freeman? Is this supposed to tell me something about the casting not being racist? Because in a movie with about eight million extras, you might expect to see more than two black people - both of whom, by the by, were likely given those roles because they are recognizable and because people pay to see them. Also to get a black audience in the theatres. Nobody targets their audience like Hollywood. They'll use black people, sure. But we should all know their names before we get in there. Some bit actor we don't know playing one of the guys in the office? He'll be white. High-profile joke we can show in the preview? Give it to Wanda Sykes.

Easy, Creirwy--don't be dissin' Soul Plane!

No, you continue to misunderstand the issue we're discussing, and that issue is that not every movie with a biblical source should come complete with "difficult questions". It's perfectly OK to create a movie with a lighthearted tone which alludes to a bible story without getting all heavy and doomy and fire-and-brimstone-y.

And, once again, it's necessary to reiterate that NOBODY involved with this movie appears to have deliberately "dumbed down" the original Noah story because they perceive the target audience as either dense or hyper-sensitive or both. If this were truly the case, these movies would have never been made. I'm frankly a bit amused to see so many people making this erroneous claim. There's ZERO evidence that the film-makers are deliberately side-stepping the difficulties of the original biblical Noah story because their core agenda is to "pander" to the "notorious over-sensitivity" of a Christian audience. That continues to be a FALSE ARGUMENT which is not sustained by any fact.

Do you really think that the creators of Little Man or Music & Lyrics or Dude, Where's My Car were "pandering" to their audences? Did it ever occur to you that they realized they were making lightweight, inoffensive fare for a specific audience and had no other "agenda" or deep abiding contempt for their audience? Then why in the world can't a group of film-makers create light-hearted inoffensive fare targeted to Christians that is very loosely based on a bible story? Why do I keep hearing people say that these film-makers deliberately and with malice of forethought "avoided the difficult questions" in the Noah story to "pander" to Christians, when they know they can't sustain such a vapid claim? Why do I continue to see people spin this wholly artificial web of suspicion PURELY AND SOLELY because this is aimed at Christians?

The fact that God is played by Freeman and the secretary is played by Sykes is good casting, no more, no less. But apparently some people think that this point somehow strengthens the "pandering" argument. Some people ALSO seem to think that the absence of additional minority characters strengthens the "pandering" argument. And yet the evidence fails to sustain either of those viewpoints.