Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Ted Baehr, Tom Snyder, and Movieguide

Recommended Posts

what?! what does that even mean?

I think they are meaning that because of his actions and the life he lived that he truly lived in the sense of being truly alive. They think that he was an example of living for God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's what they mean I don't think I can disagree enough.

I feel like rebutting with "Ghandi truly lived! Retweet if you live for God!" or Mother Theresa, or someone else, any example is better than William Wallace....


"The truth is you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin Ringo, I'm tryin real hard to be the shepherd." Pulp Fiction

Justin's Blog twitter Facebook Life Is Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. But according to them Ghandi would have been a "soulless meat machine." yuk.gif

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attica wrote:

: They think that he was an example of living for God.

I don't get that from the tweet. All they're doing is quoting a line from the movie itself (a line I have always liked, FWIW).


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attica wrote:

: They think that he was an example of living for God.

I don't get that from the tweet. All they're doing is quoting a line from the movie itself (a line I have always liked, FWIW).

Fair enough. I might have read it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things I learned about Movieguide from this VirtueOnline article:

"Les Miserables" has earned $148 million so far, and "Lincoln" (a nominee for the Epiphany Prize), earned $180 million. Why are so many good guys winning in Hollywood? Credit goes to Ted Baehr and his creation of "Movieguide."

Wow. I've learned so much just from that paragraph alone!

Another thing I learned...

"Movies have been transfixed by violence from the beginning," writes Manohla Dargis in The New York Times. He reports that..

Wait, what? Really? I've been wrong about, um, Mr. Dargis for a very long time!


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things I learned about Movieguide from this VirtueOnline article:

"Les Miserables" has earned $148 million so far, and "Lincoln" (a nominee for the Epiphany Prize), earned $180 million. Why are so many good guys winning in Hollywood? Credit goes to Ted Baehr and his creation of "Movieguide."

Wow. I've learned so much just from that paragraph alone!

Sometimes you just have to chuckle... Oh, and who are the 'good guys winning in Hollywood'? That's such an awful phrase. Do they mean the directors? If so, how do they know, and what happens if they make a horror movie next?

Which reminds me: I would like to know how Movieguide square their "the films we like are more successful, therefore make more of them" argument with dirty little facts like the vast success of horror movies; Movieguide loathes most horror films, and yet on budget/box office ratio they tend to crush all competition. Sinister, for example, which they labelled 'abhorrent', and which grossed 30x its budget. No blockbuster ever gives that sort of return. And they're so cheap to make that even if one bombs, it's not such a disaster. When a nice family-friendly tentpole film like John Carter takes a dive, the studio can lose $100 million.

Edited by Anodos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really simple.

When a movie they hate is super successful, it is an example of what is wrong with the American movie going public. When a movie they love is super successful it is an example of how The movie going public does not want to see those violent and sex fueled films they make so successful. Understood? :)


"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add that: if a quality Christian movie from a foreign land gets US distribution, or easily accessible thru streaming, it's as if the movie doesn't exist. Conversely, if they help market a volunteer-helmed indie, then the movie is akin to the greatest evangelical tool made.


Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the website www.sporcle.com, where you can play trivia quizzes on absolutely any subject. But today they uploaded a new quiz: movies by questionable content, where you have to identify sixteen movies from quotes of problematic content according to Movieguide reviews. (Whoever set up the quiz selected some good examples of Movieguide's absurdity, as well as actual problematic content. It's mind boggling that Movieguide cannot see a difference.)

Link here: http://www.sporcle.com/games/druhutch/listofcontent

It is so sad that Movieguide was the go to website for both family and Christian "reviews." And now anyone unfamiliar with Christian reviews who sees the quiz will assume Movieguide is a standard example of Christian movie reviews. $#!^


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the website www.sporcle.com, where you can play trivia quizzes on absolutely any subject. But today they uploaded a new quiz: movies by questionable content, where you have to identify sixteen movies from quotes of problematic content according to Movieguide reviews. (Whoever set up the quiz selected some good examples of Movieguide's absurdity, as well as actual problematic content. It's mind boggling that Movieguide cannot see a difference.)

Link here: http://www.sporcle.c...h/listofcontent

It is so sad that Movieguide was the go to website for both family and Christian "reviews." And now anyone unfamiliar with Christian reviews who sees the quiz will assume Movieguide is a standard example of Christian movie reviews. $#!^

I got 12 out of 16!


"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11. Some of these totally weren't fair, though.

'Zombies chase and bite people, zombies shot and impaled, zombies eat and open up man, man struck in head with dart...'

That could apply to any number of zombie movies.


It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11. Some of these totally weren't fair, though.

'Zombies chase and bite people, zombies shot and impaled, zombies eat and open up man, man struck in head with dart...'

That could apply to any number of zombie movies.

I actually got that one, but I only got 9 overall. For the most part, I just wasn't thinking back to films from the '90's and early '00's.

Some of these are a riot: "vehicle chase scene," "creepy tree grows into people," "inconsistent, incoherent ontology & science"


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11. Some of these totally weren't fair, though.

'Zombies chase and bite people, zombies shot and impaled, zombies eat and open up man, man struck in head with dart...'

That could apply to any number of zombie movies.

It was the dart that gave it away (or I've watched SHAUN OF THE DEAD far too many times).


"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, folks.

 

A guy I know who is writing about Movieguide's cultural influence has been talking with me about the people who support Movieguide and the arts-and-faith communities that find the Movieguide philosophy misguided. The conversation about two very different worldviews, two very different ways to engage art, has covered a lot of ground. But he raises this question, which I'm not sure how to answer.

 

He asks me what "middle-ground Christians in Hollywood" think of the Movieguide empire. Outside of Hollywood's religious right (The Left Behinders, the Fireproofers, etc), is anyone willing to back Baehr, or entertain his theories?

 

Thoughts?


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see such folk conscious of Ted Baehr's ministry; he makes occasional appearances in his annual all-moral-movies-are-lucrative/all-immoral-movies-lose-money article, and this occasionally makes the rounds in various periodicals and talk show gurus, but I don't think it's led to a lot of new adherents.


Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He asks me what "middle-ground Christians in Hollywood" think of the Movieguide empire. Outside of Hollywood's religious right (The Left Behinders, the Fireproofers, etc), is anyone willing to back Baehr, or entertain his theories?

 

Thoughts?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems to imply some sort of Christian mainstream group in film-making when being a "Christian" group in the first place usually means a sub-culture mentality which is precisely what Christians who disagree with Baehr intentionally or habitually avoid.  If "middle-ground Christians in Hollywood" doesn't imply a group, then what?  Scott Derrickson?  Terrence Malick?  Lee Isaac Chung?  I'd expect any of them to regret even taking the time to read even a single Movieguide review, even of one of their own films.  For anyone else to "back Baehr, or entertain his theories" they would actually have to read or seriously consider Movieguide's reviews. If, by their very nature, such reviews are aimed only at the religious right crowd, then almost no one else is going to care enough to read or discuss them.

The last time I read anything outside this thread that even mentioned Baehr at all was in Brett McCracken's Gray Matters, but, not suprisingly (McCracken being from Christianity Today/Books & Culture/Relevant Magazine) he criticized Baehr pretty strongly.

 

The only other thing I can think of from the "middle-ground" or mainstream is that it is entirely possible that C.S. Lewis intended to write about activists like Baehr in his essay, After Priggery - What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember reading about various Movieguide galas and being suprised by some of the people who turned up there, but I can't remember offhand who they were.  There might be links to this on Movieguide's website..... if you dare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading something about Patricia Heaton being at a MovieGuide event.  And maybe that kooky Baldwin brother?

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if Ken Wales and some of the "dominionist" folks associated with that controversial rescinded-Oscar-nomination movie were friendly toward him. Sorry if any of this offends, I'm just basing this on comments in the other thread.

 

Take all of this with a grain of salt. I try to avoid most MovieGuide-related news because, while it's certainly entertaining, it also drives me BONKERS.

 

EDIT:

Ok, I ventured to the "movieguideawards" web site and found this. Recognizable names include Andy Garcia, Joe Mantegna, and a bunch of third-tier Disney Channel stars. Oh, and Jerry Mathers of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER fame. This is all just from last year's "gala."  Ha. Oh, and there's a picture of Chuck Norris on the home page.

 

http://www.movieguideawards.com/Gala2013PhotoPages/OnStage.html

http://www.movieguideawards.com/Gala2013PhotoPages/RedCarpet.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Corbin Bernsen was there as well..

Andy Garcia looks unhappy to be there in every picture.


"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Corbin Bernsen was there as well..

Andy Garcia looks unhappy to be there in every picture.

Ha!  Yeah, I should have clarified that I don't think everyone there necessarily endorses Baehr's ideas. Garcia definitely looks like he walked into a trap.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...