|
|
Some years back, there was a trailer for a movie concerning (if I recall correctly) an archeologist's discovery of the remains of Jesus. And I thought "yeah, that'll never make it to the cinema", and that was the last I heard of it.
P.S. It seems to be this -- The Body[^] -- so maybe it did get to some cinemas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had been looking forward to it. I just checked Netflix and they don't have it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been around since 2001 if we are talking about the same movie[^].
...maybe Netflix doesn't go that far back?
Update: I guess we *are* talking about the same movie, just saw your link 
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: And I thought "yeah, that'll never make it to the cinema", and that was the last I heard of it.
I don't remember there being threats of violence over it.
IOW, if a movie (book, art exhibit, etc) is protested non-violently, those objecting are using the same power of expression as the exhibitor and their opposition is very different than threatening violence, no?
cat fud heer
|
|
|
|
|
I remember the stink that "Life of Brian" whipped up, to say nothing of the films that were actually about Christ.
Bombings no, but there were terrifying threats of excommunication!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny that you refer to it as a stink. I consider it just more of the give and take of ideas in a free society. I've got no problem with you calling it a stink, but it reminds me of the number of times I see/hear jourmalists refer to something as "controversial" because they can find someone who, like them, objects to it.
In the US, excommunication is protected by the right of association, covered by our First Amendment. Not exactly a re-birth of the Inquisition, eh?
cat fud heer
|
|
|
|
|
Don, in the UK, colloquially, stink = controversy. I believe that controversy/controversial refers to something about which there are opposing arguments, strenuously, or even violently, voiced. I would suggest that any journalist worth their paycheque would only use the term when such opposing viewpoints exist.
The Life of Brian was certainly controversial, which in my view was farcical as the objections were mainly to do with Brian = Christ = blasphemy. If these objectors had actually watched the film, there was even a fleeting glimpse of Christ to show that Brian was not Christ. I'm sure there were some that saw this, in itself, as blasphemous.
I have no idea about excommunication in the US, but my reference to it was satirical.
You are right that everyone has a right to an opinion, even idiots!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
We use "stink" the same way in the US. I guess my point is that, when it comes to journalists here there is a tendency to use "controversial" only when in the journalist is in opposition to the point of view.
For example, in 2001 or so an American musical act, The Dixie Chicks, made some remarks about the US President, while on stage in London, that many thought here thought were controversial. However, there were also reports that reactions to their comments, e.g. pulling their music from radio playlists, were controversial.
Guess what! Depending on the news source, only the comments or the responses were called "controversial", although using the standard you put forth (and with which I agree) any level-field reporting would use "controversial" for both or neither.
Just my thing re journalists. They proclaim to be reporting the facts to suggest that means theirs is the whole truth. However, when they arbitrarily use certain adjectives they are expressing editorial bias. I have no problem with editorial bias. I think it's important that news outlets be permitted to have it. The alternative would be government control of the press.
Hmmmm...if I keep this up I may get relegated to the Soapbox.
Merry Christmas!
cat fud heer
|
|
|
|
|
You too (and Happy Holiday Season, in case you're a Pastafarian)!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
We do consider this to be about the middle event of the High Eating Season, beginning with Thanksgiving (late November) and wrapping with Super Bowl, which used to be in early/mid January but AGW has pushed it into February. 
cat fud heer
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one does need extra calories in the cold months! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
If I read about this case I am really upset about the security level and support which Sony provided. Somehow I must confess, that their lousy security provoced such criminal activities. And it wasnt the first attack - but they havent learned their lessons. So they had to fail again...
But "Freedom of Speech" is a fundamental right and who is attacking is an enemy of us all. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
JMK-NI wrote: Something must have really spooked them.
My opinion...
Sony ran the risk of greater embarrassment and it had nothing to do with the potential terrorist acts at theaters, which our country said was not much of a threat in this situation. This is why they scrapped the movie. Many millionaires/execs at Sony, running the risk of financial ruin.
|
|
|
|
|
So the best they could do is release it for free on the internet.
They won't make any money anyway, so give it away and more people see it than if the hackers had STFU in the first place - so Sony don't win, but neither do the hackers.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
They probably received an anonymous email warning of a potential "glorious thermonuclear annihilation of the American infidel and his brothers who will be crying in their own blood and weeping at their petty insults of the great and glorious leader".
Personally I'd have just left a negative review on IMDB ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
As you know/experience it, is Christmas as religious holiday or a good old tradition that you happy be part of?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christmas is a just good excuse to get together with the family or throw a party, because everyone gets the day off.
|
|
|
|
|
Christmas is actually a pagan holiday - a holdover from sun (not Son) worship.
BTW, wasn't "whole lotta duct tape" a song by Led Zeppelin?
|
|
|
|
|
Sun worship? Ever since people learned to predict the future ( = make a calendar) by astronomy, the two equinoxes and the longest and shortest days of the year have been holidays in most cultures.
Christmas at least used to be at the shortest day of the year. Not the perfect day for sun worship
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was meant as a celebration to the fact, that the shortest day is through and the sun would appear more every day.
|
|
|
|
|
"Not the perfect day for sun worship"?
They considered it a rebirth of the sun - it was getting stronger every day from that points (okay, they were off by a few days). If you don't believe it, though, you can look it up. It's not just a theory. A Roman leader wanted to unite his citizens, pagans and Christians, and figured this was a way to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
It used to be a religious holiday but in recent times it has become a shopping/consumer event.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
There's a fine line between crazy and free spirited and it's usually a prescription.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
