So, your complaint has NOW become something different: they didn't spend their money right, either on the movie or on their marketing. Ah... very interesting.

You THINK maybe they pandered, but it's clear you're now floundering on how to prove it. In the interim, the judge has dismissed the pandering case against Evan Almighty on sheer lack of evidence.

So, having failed to sustain the pandering argument, now we're moving on to critize the SCOPE of their marketing. Well, well. Just start shooting and maybe you'll eventually hit something.

Newsflash: not everything has to be wielded like the whips in Passion. Just because a movie isn't getting people frothing at the mouth doesn't mean it's valueless or "pandering" A binary viewpoint like that... is so limiting.

Hee hee hee

The movie doesn't pander to Christians. The movie panders to brain-dead play pretend Christians who are much more offensive than the movie could ever be.

Hee hee hee

The evidence for pandering is plain. You can visit it at arkalmighty.com. You, of course, weren't the recipient of Grace-Hill's various missives explaining how this movie was an especially Christian goody. But, the thrust of the marekting campaign is conclusive. And, Grace-Hill wasn't hired to market this to Hindu's. It was specifically formed to market movies to Christians.

Equally, the evidence of incompetent pandering is plain. You seem to assume that pandering is somehow a bad thing. If it is, hollywood, politics, advertsing, and most marketing is a bad thing. Hmm, maybe, it is. Anyway, incompetent pandering is at least bad nusiness. Pandering, itself, means to provide gratification for others' desires. (usually but not necessarily in a naughty way. Come to think of it, the duck penis thing and the fart jokes probably qualify on that level,)

Neither Oh, God, nor Veggie Tales were in any way like The Passion except in their success in reaching the audience Euuyyuu Almighty is trying to.

I guess you missed those parts in the earlier posts.

Hee Hee hee

Proof? No? OK, that's what I thought. Yup, brain-dead indeed.

Hee hee hee

No, your misinterpretation of "pandering" is plain. You haven't proved how arkalmighty.com is "pandering" (anymore than any other web-based tie-in is "pandering") You haven't explained exactly how the targeting of Christian audiences is "pandering" based on the absence of specific targeting to Muslims or Jews. Oh, wait... here we have the answer: you clearly misunderstand the use the term, erroneously interpreting it as some vague all-encompassing benign concept involving "hollywood, politics, advertsing, and most marketing".

You further qualify this odd impression of "pandering" as incompetent, but all we've learned here is that you perceive yourself as being "pandered" by everything around you, and you're apparently OK with it. Fair enough. Unfortunately, that argument fails when we remember that the term usually carries negative connotations, and it's pretty clear that David Plotz's use thereof was not exactly meant as praise. So, YOU can re-interpret "pandering" as you'd like, but the rest of us are referring to the term as it applies to its usage in the context of the article we're discussing. And we end up in the same place: there's STILL no proof at all that Christians are being "pandered".

Oh, and Veggie Tales, Oh, God and The Passion had their own unique approach to their (apparently pre-requisite) "pandering", but I suppose you actually had to have that clarified for you. Cuz, you know... confusion. AGAIN.

Hee hee hee

Geez, how can people be so hung up on the word "pander"? It means to provide gratification for someone else's desires. Christians are always bitching that hollywood ignores or debases them. This movie has specifically marketed itself (in part) to christians. It seems they have a desire to see it (since viewings are being organized by churches), based on biblical subject. Ergo, the movie is gratifying their desires.

Because people who understand proper usage of the English language know that it's a pejorative term. And that's how the author used the term, as a criticism, not as a commendation (this being a really simple concept that very few people seem to grasp). The idea conveyed is the same as "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to suck up to religious moviegoers", "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to condescendingly patronize religious moviegoers", etc.

The article would not have conveyed the author's intentions had it been titled "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to gratify the desires of religious moviegoers". Anyone with even a basic grasp of the language would wonder why, worded as such, an effort to gratify those desires would be "appaling"... but when you deliberately use the word "pander", then the meaning is pretty obvious.

Or are you telling us that you'd just sit there and smile if your waiter came up to you with the check and said "were you well pandered this evening?"

There is little doubt that the word "pander" usually has pejorative connotations, although there is no literal reason why it should in every context.

In any case, it certainly DID have negative connotations here. Of course, it is hardly unknown for more conservative and/or religious commentators to use the same term if the movie in question "panders" to their target audience's desire for sexual titillation or violence.

crunchyfrog:

Because people who understand proper usage of the English language know that it's a pejorative term. And that's how the author used the term, as a criticism, not as a commendation (this being a really simple concept that very few people seem to grasp). The idea conveyed is the same as "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to suck up to religious moviegoers", "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to condescendingly patronize religious moviegoers", etc.

The article would not have conveyed the author's intentions had it been titled "Evan Almighty's appalling effort to gratify the desires of religious moviegoers". Anyone with even a basic grasp of the language would wonder why, worded as such, an effort to gratify those desires would be "appaling"... but when you deliberately use the word "pander", then the meaning is pretty obvious.

Oh, by all the - you just made your own argument. We've been sitting here saying that the movie condescendingly patronizes religious moviegoers, and providing arguments thereof, and you've been saying that those same examples are merely examples of 'entertainment' or 'gratification'.

I say if you make a God story and completely leave out the actual God story, you're softening a religion so as to make it inoffensive to all sects of Christianity, and that is pandering. You say, they did it just so all Christians (and regular moviegoers) could enjoy the movie, and so that's just good fun. I do see your point - we don't get up in arms when Shakespeare's plays are remade as high school romantic comedies - but then again, Shakespeare's plays were originally intended as romantic comedies. The Bible story was originally meant to strike crazy fear into the hearts of those who might cross the Lord. If you fuck up, He will flood you and start over. Which, frankly, is a funnier premise than the one we have - God randomly decides to take an average Joe and give him a beard and an ark for his own amusement - or for one man's salvation, which is silly. And it's also Christianity Lite, which is pandering. So that no one gets upset about their interpretation, they just leave out the interpretation and keep the animals.

You say that's just entertainment. They found their story where they found their story. Okay, but they could have been less wussy about their interpretation - and I can't think of any reason to dumb down the Bible story except for fear of losing a religious audience that might be offended if your interpretation doesn't match theirs. And given how many sects of Christianity there are, any interpretation would offend someone.

Fine. Difference of opinion. I'm officially done here. I'm going to go find a war to to discuss or something.

Oh, man... why can't people pay attention? I've been arguing all along that David Plotz is WRONG when he clearly states that the movie patronizes condescendingly (i.e. panders to) Christian audiences. My argument has been and continues to be that it DOES NOT, and throughout the discussion, no reasonable evidence has been provided that IT DOES.

I just finished reminding everyone that the article uses the word "pandering" as pejorative (which was more of a reading comprehension lesson for those who didn't quite get it the first time around, since many thought ---incorrectly--- that the author may have used the term "pandering" as a way to convey "appealing to gratification"). So, again, tell me... what exactly did YOU not comprehend?

The ongoing flawed argument is that if you create a story based on a biblical passage, but leave out the difficult parts, then that instantly qualifies as "pandering" to Christians. But NOT A SINGLE POSTER has shown that this is a truism. It is a personal and highly biased opinion, but it is NOT A FACT.

In essence, the flawed argument says that we MUST hold a biblical story to a higher (and wholly arbitrary) standard when adapted to popular entertainment, or otherwise our knee-jerk reactions can only be that a) evil ol' Hollywood is just "pandering" to Christians, or b) evil ol' Christians are sneaking their evil ol' dogma into popular culture. And I'm just continuing to point out that either of those knee-jerk statements will need A LOT OF TANGIBLE EVIDENCE of such intent to avoid being dismissed outright as hyper-cynical, ultra-biased babble. And there has been a palpable absence of such proof in this discussion.

Sure, the movie may, in the end, end up viewed as "unfunny", i.e. fail as worthwhile comedy product. But that does NOT qualify as a statement reinforcing the "pandering" argument. It's personal bias, and ONLY personal bias, that would allow someone to make the illogical inference that if the movie isn't "funny", then it must be "pandering", because gee... the record shows that Hollywood always puts out such great comedy product all the time.

There CONTINUES to be a lack of evidence that Evan Almighty is a cleverly-constructed vehicle purely for the purpose of Christian-pandering, to eke out a super-safe product that hopes to be as inoffensive as possible so as to hopefully please those notoriously fragile, neurotic Christians. Like I've said all along: market a movie to Christians, and there's GOTTA be some suspicious angle. There's gotta be a "catch". Someone's gotta be getting snowed here.

It's the flawed argument that, in the end, is "pandering" and ultimately offensive to Christians. It's that ugly personal bias, which views Christians as dumb rubes being fed a steaming heap of dumb-downed Hollywood crap with a dash of bible seasoning, that is pandering and offensive. It's creepy, it's arrogant, it's narrow-minded and soft-headed, and, as this discussion has clearly illustrated, it is impossible to sustain rationally.

I just noticed this thread! From long ago. Damn, Crunchyfrog, you really over-reply to everything and completely deny anyone's attempt at saying something other than what you want to hear. It's totally obnoxious.

You noticed that too? ;-)

#$%