Religions > Atheism > is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 May 2006 09:04:17 AM |
| Object: |
is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
his village was a cry for the moral dirtiness the urban world has
brought us too apparently and all the relativity goo we be into and a
yearning for the times when ppl was all nice n dressed the same and
cleanoes and old men were revered, things were all nice, cute and aryan
and 'work ethicky' (i.e. slavery-justifying), whereas the cities are
full of dirty wirty murty whatever...
signs was one huge lameass rhetorical vacuous manipulative simploid
simplistic retarded stewebrainish like argument in favour of... get
this... in favour of the 'existance of God', when he recovers his
'faith' based on a lame ***** argument about chance he instantly takes
this to mean that a financial company like 'christianity' is 'God's'
representative on earth!!! this is tendentious and ridden with tricks
for the morons, but its classical in the church brainwashing classes
that spread throughout that creepy financial world, in fact its a
classical argument used by the cretin morons of christianity to hide
the pure political economy or the (post)structures behind just
everything 'there is'. i.e. clergy creeps tell us its about 'faith' or
'believing in god' to hide the fact that its purely a matter of
examining christianity and all its churches' histories and every little
corner of its financial empire, to make it look as if its a fight
between christianity and atheism. its a classic corporate trick.
another gem for the mel gibson creeps.
to cure yourself from this tripe je vous salue marie might be a good
place to start, thou its far too spiritual for me. and, of course, the
punk at old age robert bresson's l'argent.
.
|
|
| User: "Cormagh" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
14 May 2006 09:59:04 PM |
|
|
I'm going to post my review of Signs, which explains my view, that the
movie actually was meant to be a mixed bag, while it also exemplifies
everything that is wrong with Shyamalan. (I was so disappointed by
Signs, that I wouldn't see The Village.) Signs is actually a naive
agnostic movie, which argues that atheists are wrong for excluding
meaning (This overlooks the fact that most atheists probably don't
exclude meaning from anything.) Enjoy the review.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0286106/usercomments-1530
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
14 May 2006 11:25:28 PM |
|
|
Cormagh ha escrito:
I'm going to post my review of Signs, which explains my view, that the
movie actually was meant to be a mixed bag, while it also exemplifies
everything that is wrong with Shyamalan. (I was so disappointed by
Signs, that I wouldn't see The Village.) Signs is actually a naive
agnostic movie, which argues that atheists are wrong for excluding
meaning (This overlooks the fact that most atheists probably don't
exclude meaning from anything.)
WHAT!!?!?!?!??!?!?!
its a naive religious mooee. clearly. how on earth can you say
otherwise? your review doesnt prove what you just said, whatever it is
what you just said. an agnostic is a platonic cave of language, a word
invented to counterpoint a language simplified to the banal by
commonplace, but deep down its a word that tries to mean
'poststructure' and that religion has no moral highground to claim to
being above the ground. this piece of ***** of a movie is discourse that
tries to fog precisely agnosticism thanks to shyalashit and gibson's
(the latter, you call 'an actor of stature??? not just some efficient
guy at promoting himself??? are you for real???) stupid naive
judeo-christianism or whatever institutionalised segment of religion
they belong to. its classic simple argument used by simpleton priests;
i.e. what does the mooee do? smelly melly says there's a reason to
everything, coincidence is thanx to god and even if he does bad things
to me wife well it still doesnt matter so god exists, and, most
importantly, god simply exists therefore so does institutionalised
religion as its representative, therefore i shall now become a priest.
what institutionalised religious creeps always want to convince you of
is that thats all there is to the argument, that its about believing or
not believing, classical trick, they then invent terms like religious,
agnostic and exaggerate the atheist one just to have an argument that
will allow for the possibility of the expansion of their financial
establishment. its a bit like when coca cola splots on an advert on tv,
exposure to the advert works like a rhetorical device, gets into your
subconscious and you weigh the things you're doing at that precise
instant with whats on the tv, so the equation is no longer im here
having sex with my cousin and thats that, equation is now im here
having sex with my cousin when i could be having sex with my cousin and
having coca cola. agnostic/atheist/religious arent words that describe
the world, they arrogantly part from the world and respond to whatever
power structures are available, power equals force times velocity
(velocity, not speed). in other words, what the hell are you on bout
when you say 'it argues that atheists are wrong for excluding meaning'?
what the hell do you mean by 'empiricism' or 'skepticism'? the argument
is plain and simple, no matter whats going on in your head: smelly mel
discovers something whatever the ***** it is he discovers (christians
like to have this part nice n mysterious, grace, they say sometimes,
other times they say 'proof', 'faith' bla bla bla, all of this has been
perfectly and convincingly satirised by the likes of nietszche or
freud, what they obviously discover is linked to some sort of self
preservation imbecilic subconscious thing or other whatever cant be
arsed to waste time on what they discover) and instantly after making
this 'discovery' he's a priest. the great myth of a financial company
like the church. the best advert for church. no, church isnt something
perfectly material like its always been, designed to keep status quos,
revolutions at bay, to give authoritarianism a godly aura like in the
u.s. or like in liberia or wherever etcetera, church is simply a matter
of faith, so why shouldnt good old mel become a priest. it doesnt
matter whether, to quote the john fiske guy, ppl are resisting the
films ideology like you seem to claim, this is the mooee's ideology,
whether we like it or not. and its stupid, naive and tastes like derek
janshit's detective work.
Enjoy the review.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0286106/usercomments-1530
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
15 May 2006 05:14:57 AM |
|
|
Cormagh wrote:
(I was so disappointed by Signs, that I wouldn't see The Village.)
Signs is actually a naive agnostic movie, which argues that atheists
are wrong for excluding meaning
[snip]
This was true for me to, until last week, when my local library offered
a copy of The Village for free. You're absolutely right in
characterizing Signs as naive and agnostic. It's also (like The
Village--or any number of films from the directors with cult
followings) a kind of shitting of extremely personalized melancholy all
over celluloid.
You probably don't have the chance to ***** on celluloid and get
millions of dollars for it.
I don't have the chance.
Ergo, if the common man doesn't have the privilege of shitting his/her
insecurities out a projectionist's booth, you're never going to hear me
applaud some rich depressive's *****. ("Ow, Wow, Steven Spielberg/M.
Night Shyamalan/Clint Eastwood/ad nauseum, knows how to make a Number
2! *Good* boy!")
***** that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
15 May 2006 06:31:42 AM |
|
|
ha escrito:
Cormagh wrote:
(I was so disappointed by Signs, that I wouldn't see The Village.)
Signs is actually a naive agnostic movie, which argues that atheists
are wrong for excluding meaning
[snip]
This was true for me to, until last week, when my local library offered
a copy of The Village for free. You're absolutely right in
characterizing Signs as naive and agnostic. It's also (like The
Village--or any number of films from the directors with cult
followings) a kind of shitting of extremely personalized melancholy all
over celluloid.
You probably don't have the chance to ***** on celluloid and get
millions of dollars for it.
I don't have the chance.
Ergo, if the common man doesn't have the privilege of shitting his/her
insecurities out a projectionist's booth, you're never going to hear me
applaud some rich depressive's *****. ("Ow, Wow, Steven Spielberg/M.
Night Shyamalan/Clint Eastwood/ad nauseum, knows how to make a Number
2! *Good* boy!")
***** that.
how on earth is this mooee agnostic???????????????????????????
what???????????????????????
you tooooooooooooooooooo?????????????
explain
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
15 May 2006 08:26:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
how on earth is this mooee agnostic???????????????????????????
what???????????????????????
you tooooooooooooooooooo?????????????
I'm agreeing with you. You're the OP and asserted Shyamalan is
secretly or unknowingly "Christian," or one of Heinz' 57 Different
Varieties of Christian. You're right. By saying he's a *naive*
agnostic, I'm saying that his movies (with the exception of The Sixth
Sense) are more ponderously Christian than Pilgrim's Progress.
The Village: You Can't Make Heaven on Earth...Camelot...Spamelot...etc.
Signs: Death is the Ultimate Alien That Invades Homes and Is
Threatened, like Satan, by (Baptismal) Water. Death Is Conquered Only
By Tin Foil Hats, Joachim, and "We're All In This As a Christian
Family."
Dude just doesn't know he's so Christian-By-Numbers; hence, naive
agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
15 May 2006 03:21:40 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
how on earth is this mooee agnostic???????????????????????????
what???????????????????????
you tooooooooooooooooooo?????????????
I'm agreeing with you. You're the OP and asserted Shyamalan is
secretly or unknowingly "Christian," or one of Heinz' 57 Different
Varieties of Christian. You're right. By saying he's a *naive*
agnostic, I'm saying that his movies (with the exception of The Sixth
Sense) are more ponderously Christian than Pilgrim's Progress.
The Village: You Can't Make Heaven on Earth...Camelot...Spamelot...etc.
Signs: Death is the Ultimate Alien That Invades Homes and Is
Threatened, like Satan, by (Baptismal) Water. Death Is Conquered Only
By Tin Foil Hats, Joachim, and "We're All In This As a Christian
Family."
Dude just doesn't know he's so Christian-By-Numbers; hence, naive
agnostic.
well i thought naive meant stupid gullible, you stick agnostic to it
and you get a stupid gullible agnostic. ok ill take your word, the
expression means what you say it means, still i can't make sense of it,
ok whatever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cormagh" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
16 May 2006 04:59:12 AM |
|
|
Well, I guess what I mean is that he doesn't gush crucifixes at you and
stuff. Sure there is a miracle, but the ending calls for one. Maybe the
miracle was a god's intervention, or maybe it was Mel Gibson's genes,
or maybe it was that the gas was really only CO2. Maybe what I should
have said is that it is like medieval Christian theatre.
It seems to me that if you are going to suspend belief enough to
believe in Shymalan's aliens, then you just might be able to suspend
belief enought to believe in Shymalan's (and here Gibson's) "god", and
the point is who cares? Aliens, gods, phony atheists, its all the same
thing, and Shymalan wants us to play the agnostic along with him
through his crappy production. Some of us are unwilling, and thus all
the anger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
16 May 2006 05:45:54 AM |
|
|
Cormagh wrote:
Well, I guess what I mean is that he doesn't gush crucifixes at you and
stuff. Sure there is a miracle, but the ending calls for one. Maybe the
miracle was a god's intervention, or maybe it was Mel Gibson's genes,
or maybe it was that the gas was really only CO2. Maybe what I should
have said is that it is like medieval Christian theatre.
It seems to me that if you are going to suspend belief enough to
believe in Shymalan's aliens, then you just might be able to suspend
belief enought to believe in Shymalan's (and here Gibson's) "god", and
the point is who cares? Aliens, gods, phony atheists, its all the same
thing, and Shymalan wants us to play the agnostic along with him
through his crappy production. Some of us are unwilling, and thus all
the anger.
I haven't looked up your review yet but will by this weekend.
But without having read it, I can tell you that in many cases the anger
about Signs comes from the EXCESSIVELY despondent material. When I (or
maybe you) are as despondent as Shyamalan seems to have been when
writing/filming this crap, we are either given Mellaril or offered a
semi-private on the psych unit.
*He* gets millions. That's where the anger comes from. (Oh, and also
the inexcusable Gibson-like morbidity of having a live wive sawed in
half.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "moviePig" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
15 May 2006 08:42:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
how on earth is this mooee agnostic???????????????????????????
what???????????????????????
you tooooooooooooooooooo?????????????
I'm agreeing with you. You're the OP and asserted Shyamalan is
secretly or unknowingly "Christian," or one of Heinz' 57 Different
Varieties of Christian. You're right. By saying he's a *naive*
agnostic, I'm saying that his movies (with the exception of The Sixth
Sense) are more ponderously Christian than Pilgrim's Progress.
The Village: You Can't Make Heaven on Earth...Camelot...Spamelot...etc.
Signs: Death is the Ultimate Alien That Invades Homes and Is
Threatened, like Satan, by (Baptismal) Water. Death Is Conquered Only
By Tin Foil Hats, Joachim, and "We're All In This As a Christian
Family."
Dude just doesn't know he's so Christian-By-Numbers; hence, naive
agnostic.
SIXTH SENSE an exception? Surely the kid was a young Nazarene,
un-raising Lazarus...
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 12:58:20 PM |
|
|
Top post of your screed. The answer is: The reasons his films are
becoming less and less admired is because although he is ideologically
exactly what you say he is, he either is not aware of it himself or
denies it.
But this is not nearly the same thing as being a Mel Gibson, who not
only is aware of it but considers it his calling card. I just saw The
Village this moment, in real time, as we speak. The movie is execrable
only because Shyamalan insists for some lame reason, known perhaps only
to the ghost of Wilkie Collins, to be the maker of psychological
thrillers, when what he really is is a social commentary filmmaker
unaware that that's what he is.
But he's only 35. He's still a puppy.
sirblob1@hotmail.com wrote:
his village was a cry for the moral dirtiness the urban world has
brought us too apparently and all the relativity goo we be into and a
yearning for the times when ppl was all nice n dressed the same and
cleanoes and old men were revered, things were all nice, cute and aryan
and 'work ethicky' (i.e. slavery-justifying), whereas the cities are
full of dirty wirty murty whatever...
signs was one huge lameass rhetorical vacuous manipulative simploid
simplistic retarded stewebrainish like argument in favour of... get
this... in favour of the 'existance of God', when he recovers his
'faith' based on a lame ***** argument about chance he instantly takes
this to mean that a financial company like 'christianity' is 'God's'
representative on earth!!! this is tendentious and ridden with tricks
for the morons, but its classical in the church brainwashing classes
that spread throughout that creepy financial world, in fact its a
classical argument used by the cretin morons of christianity to hide
the pure political economy or the (post)structures behind just
everything 'there is'. i.e. clergy creeps tell us its about 'faith' or
'believing in god' to hide the fact that its purely a matter of
examining christianity and all its churches' histories and every little
corner of its financial empire, to make it look as if its a fight
between christianity and atheism. its a classic corporate trick.
another gem for the mel gibson creeps.
to cure yourself from this tripe je vous salue marie might be a good
place to start, thou its far too spiritual for me. and, of course, the
punk at old age robert bresson's l'argent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Macpherson" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 01:03:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Top post of your screed. The answer is: The reasons his films are
becoming less and less admired is because although he is ideologically
exactly what you say he is, he either is not aware of it himself or
denies it.
The reason they're become less and less admired is because they're
getting suckier and suckier. Ideology's got nothing to do with it.
The Twilight Zone by way of Ed Wood routine is producing diminishing
results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 05:41:54 PM |
|
|
Nick Macpherson wrote:
The reason they're become less and less admired is because they're
getting suckier and suckier. Ideology's got nothing to do with it.
The Twilight Zone by way of Ed Wood routine is producing diminishing
results.
From your mouth to God's ear, but the guy's not only got a major motion
picture coming out this summer, he has another in post production.
Watching The Village, and recalling Signs, I thought of many things...
Many things... I did lots of word-processing and thought of many
things...
Who is financing this guy, and why? Do they enjoy losing money or
being laughed at?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harkness" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 05:59:08 PM |
|
|
What are you talking about?
People finance him because his last four movies have all made money.
The Sixth Sense and Signs made a *shitload* of money -- Unbreakable is
the only one that didn't break $100 million domestic -- it only did $90
domestic. And that's not counting DVD, cable, broadcast TV, etcetera.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=shyamalan.htm
And those "lifetime grosses" are domestic theatrical. click on
individual titles to see the overseas numbers.
John Harkness
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 06:30:28 PM |
|
|
Harkness wrote:
What are you talking about?
People finance him because his last four movies have all made money.
So when did you become HRM's Defender of the Philistine, Mr. St.
Tropez? You *enjoyed* The Village? How many lobes did you have
lobotomized?
Suffering Jesum, it was like watching a very bad film school senior
thesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harkness" |
|
| Title: Re: is shyamalan a darling of the far right/ christian religious (same thing, really) crowd? |
11 May 2006 06:37:15 PM |
|
|
I'm not a defender of him -- and I didn't like the Village.
You wanted to know why people keep financing him. I told you.
They finance him because his films turn a profit.
That's why people finance pretty much anything.
John Harkness
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
