Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Ted Baehr, Tom Snyder, and Movieguide

Recommended Posts

Oh, gosh. Blushing. Thanks. Sorry, I misread. I was thinking maybe the Snyder comments below the New Yorker piece had been flagged earlier in this thread, and I'd simply posted a repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaand the madness continues.

 

 

According to the newly released 2014 Annual Movieguide Report to the Entertainment Industry, family-friendly, patriotic and religious films are earning more money at the American box office each year.

For the first time, nine of the top 10 grossing movies in 2013 at both domestic and international box offices had a family-orientated theme, including "Iron Man 3," "Frozen" and "Man of Steel," and a large portion of top 10, such as "Fast & Furious 6," had references to Jesus Christ.

“There is a great incentive to make movies that are good, true and beautiful. There is an audience out there, and studio heads – even ones that aren’t Christian – have intentions to reach this audience,” Movieguide founder Dr. Ted Baehr told FOX411.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do "references to Jesus Christ" included those that include his middle initial H?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news:

National Religious Broadcasters Association Creates New Christian Film Committee

 

Manassas, VA  – The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Board of Directors has established a Film Standing Committee to serve the unique interests of Christian film professionals within the NRB community.

The newly created group will join NRB’s seven other committees – Church Media, Intercollegiate, International, Internet, Music Licensing, Radio, and Television – in serving and representing their respective constituencies and in advancing the overall mission of the world’s pre-eminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators.

Dr. Ted Baehr, Founder and Publisher of Movieguide®, will serve as the Film Standing Committee’s first Chairman. 

 

 

(emphasis mine)

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just showed up in my work (!!) email box.

 

REELZ PROGRAMMING REMINDER
 

THE 22ND ANNUAL MOVIEGUIDE FAITH & VALUES AWARDS WILL AIR ON REELZ

THIS SATURDAY, MARCH 1 WITH ENCORE AIRING SUNDAY, MARCH 2

 

Bill Engvall Will Host This Year’s Star-Studded Awards Gala, Which Recognizes and Honors

Faith, Family and Values Based Movies and Television Programming

 

(Albuquerque, NM) Tuesday, February 18, 2014—The 22nd Annual Movieguide Faith & Values Awards will air on REELZ this Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 2pm ET/ 11am PT, with an additional broadcast on Oscar® Day, Sunday, March 2 at 2pm ET/ 11am PT.  This year's star-packed gala is hosted by actor-comedian, Bill Engvall, with appearances by Duck Dynasty stars Korie and Willie Robertson, The Bible’s Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, your American Idol Winner, Jordin Sparks, and emotional performances by Billy Ray Cyrus, and Joni Eareckson Tada, who exclusively performs for us the Oscar® nominated yet disqualified song, "Alone Yet Not Alone".

 

The Movieguide Awards has grown steadily in stature and popularity over its 22-year history and due to faith-based movies and television programming having a banner year, this year’s Awards Gala is shaping up to be the biggest ever. Some of the nominated movies and television programs include Gravity, 42, The Hunger Games:  Catching Fire, Black Nativity, Frozen, The Croods, Despicable Me 2, Iron Man 3, Grace Unplugged, Monsters University, Captain Phillips, Man of Steel, The Bible, Duck Dynasty, Blue Bloods, and Tim Allen's Last Man Standing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Snyder explains why the war on drugs is the greatest thing since the prohibition.  (Yes, seriously.)

(emphasis mine)

Often, the pro-legalization person cites America’s allegedly bad experience with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s.

The fact is, however, during Prohibition, the consumption of alcohol did indeed decline. Thus, Prohibition did indeed inhibit drinking.

Of course, according to the traditional reading of the Bible, it’s not bad or sinful to drink; it’s only sinful to get drunk and intoxicated. Drinking isn’t the problem; drunkenness, public intoxication, and alcoholism are the problem!

That's only one of six exclamation points in a 1300 word piece. It makes me wonder how anyone with a PhD never learned that using gratuitous exclamation points makes one sound immature and comical.
 
At the very least, did Snyder never see this:
 


 
My favorite part is this:

They seem to be arguing in a circle and begging the question here. They’re assuming that THEIR definition of liberty, freedom, and victimhood is correct, but they must prove that it is, not simply assert it!

If we change the antecedent of "they," I think I agree with every word of that sentence (exclamation point and all).
 
At the very least, there is the rare spectacle of Movieguide criticizing Fox News:

One of the arguments that drug legalization activists, including some libertarian pinheads on the Fox News Channel, make is that the War on Drugs is “unwinnable.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news:

National Religious Broadcasters Association Creates New Christian Film Committee

 

Manassas, VA  – The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Board of Directors has established a Film Standing Committee to serve the unique interests of Christian film professionals within the NRB community.

The newly created group will join NRB’s seven other committees – Church Media, Intercollegiate, International, Internet, Music Licensing, Radio, and Television – in serving and representing their respective constituencies and in advancing the overall mission of the world’s pre-eminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators.

Dr. Ted Baehr, Founder and Publisher of Movieguide®, will serve as the Film Standing Committee’s first Chairman. 

 

 

(emphasis mine)

And will you be applying to be on the committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Breaking news:

National Religious Broadcasters Association Creates New Christian Film Committee

 

Manassas, VA  – The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Board of Directors has established a Film Standing Committee to serve the unique interests of Christian film professionals within the NRB community.

The newly created group will join NRB’s seven other committees – Church Media, Intercollegiate, International, Internet, Music Licensing, Radio, and Television – in serving and representing their respective constituencies and in advancing the overall mission of the world’s pre-eminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators.

Dr. Ted Baehr, Founder and Publisher of Movieguide®, will serve as the Film Standing Committee’s first Chairman. 

 

 

(emphasis mine)

And will you be applying to be on the committee?

 

I was asked to serve as a judge for the Intercollegiate branch of NRB's student film (and music video) contest, which I was happy to do. 

 

Does that mean I lose all my hipster cred for being on A&F?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And will you be applying to be on the committee?

Heh. I've already spoken to two extraordinary individuals who turned down opportunities to be on that committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Snyder explains why the war on drugs is the greatest thing since the prohibition.  (Yes, seriously.)

(emphasis mine)

The fact is, however, during Prohibition, the consumption of alcohol did indeed decline. Thus, Prohibition did indeed inhibit drinking.

 

Actually, this is mostly agreed upon.

 

That "Prohibition didn't work," if by "work" we mean the "techne" sense of "reduced alcohol consumption," is a myth (in both senses) based on at most the experiences of a handful of urban centers (and movies and books and whatnot set in those environs). Plus a goodly helping of contemporary folks' will to believe.

 

What serious public-health officials will say is that (1) the countervailing costs were too great (see the previous paragraph, but even if so, it's a value judgement, not a fact); and (2) the decline in drinking was faster in the pre-Prohibition 10s than in the 20s, had flattened out entirely by the late-20s, and didn't increase that much when Prohibition was repealed in the mid-30s (all true stats as far as they go; which isn't very).

Edited by vjmorton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Snyder explains why the war on drugs is the greatest thing since the prohibition.  (Yes, seriously.)

(emphasis mine)

The fact is, however, during Prohibition, the consumption of alcohol did indeed decline. Thus, Prohibition did indeed inhibit drinking.

 

 

Actually, this is mostly agreed upon.

 

That "Prohibition didn't work," if by "work" we mean the "techne" sense of "reduced alcohol consumption," is a myth (in both senses) based on at most the experiences of a handful of urban centers (and movies and books and whatnot set in those environs). Plus a goodly helping of contemporary folks' will to believe.

 

What serious public-health officials will say is that (1) the countervailing costs were too great (see the previous paragraph, but even if so, it's a value judgement, not a fact); and (2) the decline in drinking was faster in the pre-Prohibition 10s than in the 20s, had flattened out entirely by the late-20s, and didn't increase that much when Prohibition was repealed in the mid-30s (all true stats as far as they go; which isn't very).

I was being somewhat hyperbolic.  Maybe that wasn't the best choice.

 

I agree the Prohibition inhibited drinking and reduced alcohol consumption; if that was its sole goal, then yes it was successful.  However, I think it created a natural environment for other crimes, some of which might not have occurred otherwise.  I think the War on Drugs is starting to go the same route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: 

 

The New Yorker's amazing new Film Reviews by Cotton Mather.

 

“Gravity”

★☆☆☆☆

A Brazen Woman earns the Wrath of God for working outside the Home and wearing her Hair short like a Man’s. While it is a diverting Pleasure to witness her sundry Punishments and Tortures at the Hands of an Angry Creator, those of sound Judgment will find it exceedingly unlikely that she would know how to pilot that Chinese Shuttle. Also, I am not sure, but I think everyone is floating because they are Witches?

 

 

But is it more amazing than the ongoing wonder of the Twitter account updated constantly by Movieguide editor Tom Snyder? 

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: 

 

The New Yorker's amazing new Film Reviews by Cotton Mather

 

Very amusing. I think The Hobbit was actually my favourite:

 

 

 

A Small Pagan is enlisted by a Scheming Warlock to help a Pack of Bearded Devils recover their Gold from a Wicked Serpent. What can I say, I loved this Film. Nay, that was but Sarcasm! I have used the Great Deceiver’s own Device against him. In Truth, “The Desolation of Smaug” is an Endless Satanical Parade of Witchcraft and Lycanthropy, designed to lure all good People of God toward the hateful Flames of Perdition. I can only hope that the Third Installment is better.

 

 

I think Tom Snyder's mental processes can be summed up by this tweet:

 

 

@BreitbartNews Krauthammer is an agnostic. If he can't get God right, why care what he says about anything???????

being followed three days later by him retweeting this:

 

 

"Note to White House: try the truth. It's easier to memorize." Krauthammer

I bet he didn't even notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: 

 

The New Yorker's amazing new Film Reviews by Cotton Mather.

 

“Gravity”

★☆☆☆☆

A Brazen Woman earns the Wrath of God for working outside the Home and wearing her Hair short like a Man’s. While it is a diverting Pleasure to witness her sundry Punishments and Tortures at the Hands of an Angry Creator, those of sound Judgment will find it exceedingly unlikely that she would know how to pilot that Chinese Shuttle. Also, I am not sure, but I think everyone is floating because they are Witches?

 

Ugh ... 

 

That image of normative Protestantism is the mirror image of The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Made worse by its appearance in the pages of the New Yorker rather than, say, the humor page on Christianity Today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anodos said:

 

:Very amusing. I think The Hobbit was actually my favourite:

 

 

The last line was a nice touch after what was said.    " I can only hope that the Third Installment is better."

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The New Yorker's amazing new Film Reviews by Cotton Mather.

 

This was a pretty fun read until the 12 Years a Slave capsule. Blech.

 

Exactly. "Those fundies are a buncha raaaaacists," the New Yorker's readers will cluck-cluck to themselves, well-stroked in their presentist prejudices. Those prejudices will, of course, remain in the privacy of their Reading Rooms and play no role in their broader lives (or ours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but keep in mind, a lot of folks at The New Yorker have probably only recently become aware of A Certain Particular Organization. And their leap to assumptions of "raaaaacism" along with other ugly biases and blindspots is not a difficult extreme to reach from that position. I've talked to many within and outside of Christian organizations who have picked up that particular vibe from that particular organization based not on mere speculation, but on that organization's own publications. Sure, it's an ugly generalization for The New Yorker to make about Christians and even fundamentalists. But when the noise that they most frequently hear from that part of the cultural map is the loud clamor of self-appointed gladiators misrepresenting the faith, a clamor that sends off vibes of racism (the tweets you-know-who shares about Obama are really scary in their insinuations), I can't muster too much frustration with The New Yorker for including that stereotype in satire that they paint with a broad brush.

 

Especially when the loudest gladiators on the right are swift to make equal and obvious stereotypes of those on the left. If one side goes to extremes and plays with nasty weapons, it doesn't justify the other side doing so, but it becomes pretty predictable that they will.

 

So it becomes a case of both sides needing to remove the "logs" from their own eyes before crying foul at the sticks in others' eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The review of 12 Years crossed a line for me as well; I thought the rest of the 'reviews' were quite clever and written in the spirit and style of Cotton Mather and his ilk ('Sinners in the hands of an angry God" and all that).  But, truth be told, considering the Puritanical attitude towards Native Americans - their eradication via smallpox as God's judgment, their mass enslavement and deportation after King Philip's War - the 12 Years A Slave review is not that big of a stretch, much as our 21st Century sensibilities may be revolted by the Puritans' attitudes and conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The review of 12 Years crossed a line for me as well; I thought the rest of the 'reviews' were quite clever and written in the spirit and style of Cotton Mather and his ilk ('Sinners in the hands of an angry God" and all that).  But, truth be told, considering the Puritanical attitude towards Native Americans - their eradication via smallpox as God's judgment, their mass enslavement and deportation after King Philip's War - the 12 Years A Slave review is not that big of a stretch, much as our 21st Century sensibilities may be revolted by the Puritans' attitudes and conduct.

 

Okay, I know I'm going to sound like an a--hole here, but, as a long time admirer of Jonathan Edwards, I ask if we can please not lump him in with Cotton Mather or the "Puritans." 

It is a shame that most people only know Edwards for that one sermon, which is often misunderstood (imo). 

 

Edwards lived later than the American Puritans (he's really an Enlightenment figure), although he was definitely an inheritor of much of that culture. He was president of Princeton University, caring deeply about the life of the mind (and not sharing the anti-illectualism of much American Puritanism). Also, as regards to the Native Americans, he was dismissed from his preaching position later in his life and served as a missionary to the Mohican tribe. I don't really have the time or inclination to go into Edwards's views of slavery, which were complex, but speaking as someone whose career it is to frequently teach the American Puritans, I find much to admire in Edwards's writings and biography, and I am grateful for having his example to guard against my own tendency to overgeneralize Christians of the past. 

 

Edit: I had forgotten until I checked Wikipedia, that Edwards purportedly died of smallpox from an inoculation he took trying to convince the Native Americans to follow his example and mitigate that epidemic. 

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't let Ken's post pass with a hearty THANK YOU! and, at the risk of thread digression, a follow-up question: What other Puritans do you teach, and which do you admire or not admire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian, I do would prefer not to get into that here for thread drift...and I don't like much posting in this thread, anyway. But I don't want to ignore a sincere question. If you pick a thread (perhaps in the literature or theology forums) or make one, I'd be happy to reply there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I ask if we can please not lump him in with Cotton Mather or the "Puritans." 

It is a shame that most people only know Edwards for that one sermon, which is often misunderstood (imo). 

 

 

[standing and applauding.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries from me, anyway, Ken - I appreciate the mini-history lesson.  From my decades in evangelicalism, however, I do find that there's a self-congratulatory selection bias in looking at an outlier or three in the midst of an overwhelming majority (Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Lutheran, Nazi Germany; Paul Rusesabagina in Rwanda; Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro among the South Americans; um, somebody or other in the American South in the early 1800's), and saying, "See, our behavior was pretty swell in the midst of that historical crisis."  Those who forget the past, yada yada...

Edited by Andrew

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...