"Hollywood's insatiable appetite for smut and violence is a major
contributor."Actually, Hollywood's appetite is for money,
and they produce what sells. The appetite for smut and violence lies in the
hearts of the consumers (natural man, if you will). Sure there is
evil in the world. But there is also good. You have your agency. You can
choose not to watch Django or other violent or salacious movies. You can choose
to limit your TV viewing to PBS. Man up and CTR.
Thankfully we are all free to choose what we watch and many of us do not think
that our version of spirituality is right for everyone.
This letter is absolutely correct that modern Hollywood has become a cesspool of
violence and immorality. However, the letter is wrong in its inference that
Hollywood has become this way on accident.Tarantino and the other
left-wing producers are filling their movies with wanton sexuality and violence
precisely because they do want the viewers to be changed by what they see.
Modern Hollywood has an open and stated agenda of destroying traditional
marriage and family. Indoctrinating the ignorant masses with the belief that
violence and sexuality are purely recreational activities goes a long way
towards furthering this agenda.No doubt, there will be several
comments from liberal posters indicating that they are unchanged by watching
unrestrained violence and sexuality in one movie after another. This simply
proves my point about just how much of the general public has fallen for
John Charity Spring said:No doubt, there will be several comments from
liberal posters indicating that they are unchanged by watching unrestrained
violence and sexuality in one movie after another. This simply proves my point
about just how much of the general public has fallen for Hollywood's
propaganda.Says a guy who has fallen head over heals for religious
propaganda over reason and logic, and boasts of it daily.
JCS,Thankfully this is a free country. You have the right to go to,
or not go to any movie you choose.I am also thankful that you do not
get to censor any movie that you find "immoral".
Hollywood is not the tail wagging the dog. People everywhere need to turn off
the tv, talk radio, and even church so they can grab a brain think for
themselves. We consume this stuff, movie producers don't stuff it down our
throats. It isn't a spiritual free fall. It's a societal loss of
people willing to be adults and think for themselves. And the worst thing is
that these people aren't just going to make bad movie choices.
There have been some great movies recently produced by Hollywood---Les
Miserables and Lincoln for example. And there are numerous other examples. Don't care for Tarantino? Don't go see his movies.
Why are we here? Are we just some "accident"? Are we nothing more than
a bunch of cells that combined?What about "opposition in all
things"? Where does that come in? What about agency to choose which of the
two opposites we want in our lives?Where do we find those opposites?
What is shown on TV and in movies is largely opposite to what is taught in our
churches. Which do we choose?We have to make a choice. As they
say, nature abhors a vacuum. In this case, that "vacuum" is the idea
that we can sit on the fence and watch.We become who and what we
desire to become. If we fill our lives with filth, we will be filthy (even if
we insist that there is no filth in movies or on TV). If we fill our lives with
charity, love and compassion, we will be nearer to the person that Christ
challenged us to become.We can sit in the dark and watch sex,
vulgarity and violence or we can sit in the light and learn about faith, hope
and charity.The choice is ours.
Comments like this always amaze me. Society is improving. Django is a fictional
movie about slavery. Just 150 years ago, this sort of thing wasn't
fictional. As a society, we've improved by leaps and bounds. Ancient Romans
fed actual humans to lions for entertainment.Ghangis Khan and Atila the
Hun committed many atrocities. Christians went on crusades to "convert"
Muslims but murdered thousand and even resorted to cannibalism. The Old
Testament if full of stories of incest, murder and slavery and it was all
acceptable. Our current society is far better than humans have ever been.
It's called progress.
Those who claim that this issue is simply a matter of choice should tell that to
the parents of innocent schoolchildren who have been massacred by purveyors of
violent entertainment. What choice did those children have?This is
not a mere matter of personal choice. Study after study, including those cited
by this paper, have proven that watching either violent or sexually deviant
movies causes viewers to become desensitized, and eventually imitate what they
see. How dare anyone claim that a few hours of watching these filthy movies is
worth the life of even one child.
Does the phrase, "ripe for destruction" mean anything?
"Wreck it Ralph" was great.so was "The Hobbit"even
James Bond's "SkyFall" was cleaner than any Bond movie I've
EVER since - even those done back in 1964.We got "The Averngers"
on Blu-ray for Christmas.We took our family to see "Gnomeo and
Juliet" for FHE.The most "violent" movie I saw this past
year was "Saints and Soldiers: Airborne Creed", and it was about good
Latter-Day Saints put in the worst this world has to offer.What do
you mean smut, sex, and violence with NO moral values?It's all
in the eye of the beholder.BTW - I know many of you believe everyone
on the left is a commie Socialist, but this is America - You vote with
your wallet.Supply equals demand.If you don't like it, drop
Capitalism and switch over to Socialism.Socialist countries don't
allow the smut and violence you complain about.
Yes, there is an empty classroom where children were slaughtered by a madman who
may have been influenced by TV and movies. But, have we stopped to think about
the 1,600,000 classrooms that were never filled because of abortions in the
United States since Roe v Wade? What societal influences led to
those abortions? Just last night my wife and I watched a DVD of The Bob Newhart
show. Something as benign as that TV show was filled with talk about the
dentist and the receptionist having sex with anyone and everyone. A generation
of youth watched that show and many other shows like it. Some of them believed
that they were entitled to have sex whenever and with whomever. How many of
them had an abortion to "correct" their mistake? How many classrooms
are empty because those babies were destroyed in the womb? Yes,
there is cause and effect. We will never know in this lifetime how many lives
were destroyed because people were indoctrinated by TV and movies without
believing that they were susceptible to the underlying messages.We
become what we participate in. No one is immune.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhat's your answer then
Bro. Richards?From your comments, it's "Forced
Righteousness".Taking away all Free Agency, banning eveything except
assualt weapons, so that no one is ever lost.Try choosing a better
way, setting a good example, stop judging others, and Follow
Christ.BTW - Alma taught a great example of Free Agency vs. Forced
Righteousness.While watching woman and children being thrown into
the fires, He said the wicked must be allowed to perform their
wickedness.And as for weapons -- Learn a lesson from the
Anti-Nephi-Lehis [Ammonites] they buried them deep in the ground, and
willing laid done and were slaughtered.By so doing, they not only
obeyed God - but in fact, their example turned many MANY more of the Lamanites
to righteousness than all the teaching and preaching ever had.And in
the end, the once righteous Nehpites who swore to live by their swords,
ultimelty all perished by them as well.Just as God - the Savior of the
world - said.
@JCS"Those who claim that this issue is simply a matter of choice
should tell that to the parents of innocent schoolchildren who have been
massacred by purveyors of violent entertainment. What choice did those children
have?"Those kids were murdered by guns, not DVD cases.
Maybe we should take a page from the book of liberal policy ideas.Tax violence and sex in all forms of entertainment, to pay for the pregnancies
and victims of violence and rape, and for the mental health treatment of perps
and victims.We should limit all video games to 10 shots then the
round is over. Limit movies to 10 shots too.We should do background
checks and ban private sales of all violent and sexual entertainment.We should restrict any guns being used that look like military style guns in
any form of media.We have to protect people from becoming cold
killers, and their potential victims.
It will be very interesting when folks who try to force their opinions and
beliefs on others suddenly realize that their ride on the Great Celestial
Elevator is going down instead of up.Funny thing is that
they'll probably be heading the same direction as those who actions they
Ironically, it's we liberals who have been campaigning against a violent
society and violent media fare all along. Somebody's confused if they think
To "Curmudgeon" you are wrong. If Hollywood was after profits, they
would be making G-Rated movies. See "Study: G-rated movies most
profitable" at NBC News.To "Happy Valley Heretic" you
are wrong. What Hollywood puts out does effect how people act. See
"Literature Review of Media Messages to Adolescent Females" from
University of Saskatchewan and "The Influence of Media Marketing on
Adolescent Girls" from Kappa Omicron Nu.
FYI - Christ was a passavist.Care to explain how a disiple or follower of
Christ can be pro-gun?Yet here we see it - The Anti-War,
Anti-Gun, Anti-Violent, passavist, Bleeding Heart Liberals are somehow being
blamed by the Pro-Gun, Pro-War, Pro-Military, Pro-Business
Conservatives?And RedShirt -- They won't make films if
they don't make money.You're the pure Capitalist...you should
understand supply / demand economics.yours is the motto: Keep Government
out of it - Let the Free Markets decide.And G-rateed movies
don't make more money at the box-office.It's compounded by all
the toys, action figures and DVDs sold after the fact.You hawk-eye
business sense is slipping.
OMM/LDS Liberal,Where did Mike Richards advocate "force".
He reminded us that we become what we participate in. Is
"participating" in watching a movie or a TV show "force"? Why
did you twist what he said to mean something other than what he wrote? Does
that serve your purpose? Isn't that exactly what those movies and TV shows
are doing, twisting something good and trying to make it look old fashioned or
passe?Virtue is good. TV and movies long ago told us that we were
prudes to believe that sex should be reserved for marriage.Violence
is evil. TV and movies tell us that it is perfectly fine to use force to get
our way. (You even twisted Mike's words to imply that he suggested using
force.)Agency requires that each of us receive back the consequences
of our actions. Participating in movies or TV or any other activity that
excites the animal within is wrong. You are the only poster who used the word
"force".I applaud Mike for speaking out against giving in to
appetites and passions. I wonder why you find that "forcing" anyone.
"Much of society is in a spiritual free-fall, and Hollywood's
insatiable appetite for smut and violence is a major contributor."It seems to me that it is the general public that has the "insatiable
appetite for smut and violence". Hollywood is just feeding that appetitie.
How many commenters who have blamed Hollywood have watched any TV program or
movie with either of thses elements in the past year?Instead of
pointing the finger at Hollywood for simply meeting a demand, how about if we
all start looking at ourselves.Against my better judgement I'm
going with my man Michaeal Jackon on this one. "I'm starting with the
man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could
have been any clearer. If you wanna make the world a better place take a look at
yourself and then make a change."
To "Open Minded Mormon" what are you talking about? The statement was
made by "Curmudgeon" that Hollywood makes more R rated movies because
they are more profitable to hollywood. The facts are that R rated movies are
not the most profitable. So, if Hollywood is not producing movies based on
profit, what is their motive?Are many of their movies intended to
legitimize their beliefs by making them seem "normal"? Are their many
of their movies intended to be propaganda to steer the nation to their desired
goal?The question isn't about box-office profitability, but
RedShirt,Sometimes you and I are on different sides and sometimes
the same. However, it does you (or your points) no good to start off so many
posts with "you are wrong".If you are seeking an argument,
no problem (you will get one). If you are seeking to influence, then that is
not generally the way to do it.It's not about being forthright.
It's about talking to an audience and not having them close up the minute
you start speaking.I am not trying to offend.
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTOMM/LDS Liberal,Yes - a little
trick I learned from RedShirt/RedShirt 1701.I grew tired of his unfair 2
to 1 comments.Where did Mike Richards advocate "force".You both do daily.Your constantly banning of all things "evil"
was precisely Lucifer's Plan - I'm against it. I'll take
Freedom, and all the "vices' that go along with it.Hopefully, by
leading by good example others will "desire" to choose the right.We both are trying for the same goals...I just agree with Christ's
methods more than yours.===========RedShirt.Please name one Hollywood movie produced at a complete and utter loss purely
for promoting an agenda?I'll even use someone obviously bent with an
agenda, and even on my side:Michael Moore films are even made with making
a profit in mind.Producers will never finance them if their is any
percieved loss.It's ALL about money and Capitalism.FYI - Socialist government can actual ban sex and violence.Is that what
you are advocating?
To "Twin Lights" how would you like me to tell you that you are wrong?
Does it hurt your feelings when somebody says "you are wrong"? As you
will note, I backed up my statement with easily verifiable evidence.The big question for you and your ilk is this. Why is it an issue to be told
you are wrong when the truth confirms that you are wrong?I am not
concerned about offending. I want to only the truth to be seen.
re:RedShirtOne study. One study, conducted by a conservative advocacy
group, came to the conclusion that G-rated movies were more profitable. However
critics say:"The group's study is a switch in tactics.
"Now they're trying to talk Hollywood's language, namely
money," says Kevin Hago-pian, a lecturer in media studies at Pennsylvania
State University in Philadelphia.But the study's claim that
G-rated movies are more profitable than PG, PG-13, or R-rated movies may be
inaccurate. "The clarity of profits in Hollywood is just as hard to define
as the notion of a 'family film,' " he says, noting that studios
use all sorts of complicated (some would say creative) accounting to determine
profitability."(Christian Science Monitor "Why aren't there
more G movies?")More research needed. Obviously
there is money to be made from R-rated movies. Disney also re-releases older
movies, adding to profit totals. When top grossing movies are evaluated,
correcting for inflation, many/most are PG-13 rated.
To "Open Minded Mormon" once again, I will prove you wrong.The anti-Nazi propaganda movies that Hollywood put out in the early
1940's were unprofitable.See "Movies see gaff of hard year:
Anti-NAZI films Unprofitable to Studios" from the DN on January 1, 1941.The anti-nuclear movie "Until the End of the World" released in
1991 lost $38 million
We don't have much evidence of video games or movies as a direct cause of
violence but I'm sure it has some impact. I myself avoid them unless they
have a very accurate historical significance and accuracy. No zombie or slashers
for me or my house.The fact is we are getting LESS violent as a
society while we have MORE violent movies. There could very well be a
substitution effect happening according to a Berkeley study titled "Does
Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?"The study actually shows
that when there is a violent movie showing violence decreases. And we know from
Steven Pinker's research that violence is decreasing long term. Google that
title and you'll find the Berkeley study. It's simply too much to put
in here. Now wouldn't a scientific, fact based discussion be
The smut and violence attracts impressionable youth. It is a form of
exploitation. The key to the problem are parents who don't provide enough
moral or ethical guidance to their children. We meed to pay more attention to
what kids are doing. "No success in life can compensate for failure in the
home". David O. McKay.
@Redshirt:"The statement was made by "Curmudgeon" that
Hollywood makes more R rated movies because they are more profitable to
hollywood."I never made such a statement. You lose crebility by
claiming I did. Go reread my first comment.Further, you obviously
don't know much about how businesses operate. Any business that has
multiple products will have one that produces greater profits than the others.
That does not mean that the company abandons all its other products and only
produces the one with the largest profit margin. Take pharmaceuticals for
example. Or cars. Or guns. Or you name it. The same goes for the movie
industry. They produce G-, PG-, PG-13, and R-rated movies to appeal to the
largest possible audience, to stay diversified, and to increase overall revenue
and profits.Honestly, your implication that Hollywood is not
interested in profits because it doesn't exclusively produce highly
profitable G-rated movies is nonsense. Do a google search. I found a list of
the 15 most profitable movies by ROI. There were 6 R-rated, 3 PG-13-rated, and
6 PG rated. None was G-rated.
Mike asks.."Why are we here? Are we just some "accident"? Are we
nothing more than a bunch of cells that combined?" Pretty much yes..more
complicated than that but pretty much that's the answer. And..most of the
people I know who adhere to that belief are far more moral, humane, and kind,
than those who I encounter who believe they fulfill some grand purpose. When
this is all you have you treat it well.
ScrewdriverIf violence is decreasing then we should be perfectly
safe owning whatever guns we want.But no one must believe that study
because there are so many trying to get guns so they can be safe and the rest
are trying to take all the guns away so they can be safe.I am sure
there are big bucks behind that research which came from the Hollywood and the
gaming industry to show what they wanted. As for some who suggest
that we look at our own habits, I decided a long time ago that if my child was
uncomfortable watching it, or playing it, or if I was uncomfortable having them
see me watching it, I wouldn't watch or play. I have seem very few movies
the last 20 years. I have definitely done what I can with my dollars to support
only entertainment that is moral. I practice moral choices myself, I
have taught them to my kids, so to help more I must speak out in the community.
I do not force, but I will speak out, with my free speech. We need to stop
feeding our baser instincts, and reinforce the good.
I've always wondered what it'd be like to be like Rowdy Roddy Piper in
"They Live"; Thanks to JCS that curiosity has been quelled.@
Mike Richards 10:41 a.m. Jan. 16"We become what we participate
in. No one is immune."Curious; 1) What exactly did you
participate in to make you the life of the party?? 2) How did/do you feel about
I Dream of Jeannie?
in regards to Irony guy... 1) It was Tipper Gore who started PMRC back in the
day. 2) Ted Nugent is now quite the conservative spokesperson but have you paid
attention to his lyrics?at J Thompson"TV and movies
tell us that it is perfectly fine to use force to get our way."Like a Clint Eastwood movie?
RedShirt,No, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. Since you have not
addressed that phrase to me (at least not recently) it was not my feelings I was
talking about. I had no reference to the issue in question so I am unconcerned
about if you backed up your statement or not.My one and only point
was that you have some good opinions – some that I agree with. But you
are so prickly in the way you express yourself that you are driving folks away
from even considering your opinions.My “ilk”? Again,
kind of offensive and there was no need to be.The truth is certainly
important. But if no one will consider it because of the way it is presented,
then you are not advancing your cause.Sort of like the old
missionary lesson where the missionaries are asked if they want cake. They say
yes. One gets a well served piece on a nice plate. The other gets a mess of
cake. The point being presentation matters even with the Gospel.Again, my question is do you want an argument or to advance understanding?
Christian 24-7 you obviously didn't read the study. F for you. Do your
To "Twin Lights" when I was a missionary I wouldn't care about the
presentation. I would be happy to just get the cake. I used to care about
being delicate at handling your ilk, but have decided that it is ineffective.To "Curmudgeon" you said that "Actually, Hollywood's
appetite is for money, and they produce what sells." If Hollywood's
appetite was for money, they would be producing G and PG rated movies.Now you are putting words in my mouth. The issue remains that G and PG movies
are the most profitable. The ratings do not "diversify" their products.
Movie studios have 2 products. Movies and spin-off merchendise.I
never said that Hollywood isn't interested in profits. I stated that
profits are not their prime motivation. There are other motives out there
behind their movies.
OMM,It's not just curious but somewhat offensive when you tell
you that you are doing the Lord's work by defending negative choices. It
is also offensive when you tell us that some of us want to "ban"
anything that you advocate.I don't think that you can
substantiate your claim that I, or Mike Richards or Redshirt or anyone else that
you mock has ever called for the "banning" of anything. Asking people to be wise in their actions is not "banning" improper or
imprudent actions.Reminding people that there are consequences to
seeing things that might trigger lust or violence is not "banning" a
movie, book or TV show.Christ did not offer choices. He told us
that the way was straight and the gate was narrow that leads us back to him.
Was he "banning" agency when he told us that?Christ told us
to guard our thoughts. He told us to choose carefully.You tell us
the opposite.Some movies tell us the opposite.Some books
tell us the opposite.Some TV shows tell us the opposite.Make your case, but don't twist and turn our words.Choices =
consequences = destination.
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTOMM,I don't think that you
can substantiate your claim that I, or Mike Richards or Redshirt or anyone else
that you mock has ever called for the "banning" of anything. --------------OK - I'll try it again.The DN montior
keeps censoring my "thoughtful" comment.I'd like to
select one, abortion.You all want to "ban" abortions, all of
them.With No exceptions.Just like the GOP party platform.Meanwhile - The LDS church - OUR church - has gone on record....Allowing for them [i.e., NOT banning them outright as you so desire.] is
certain situations.1. Rape and Incest.2. Life and Health of
the Woman.3. Viablity of the Fetus.4. The decision to made by the
woman, her Doctor, her family and/or her clergy.5. The Church has not
favored or opposed legislative proposals...concerning abortion.I
support the LDS Churches stance on this matter 100%You and your political
party - by making NO exceptions - do not.You are Forcing everyone to
Choose the Right [in YOUR opinion], Always. Even if it kills you.No-Choices = No-consequences = No-destination.That's why I
To "LDS Liberal" again with the lies. Please state the date, time, and
article where J Thompson, Mike Richards, or I have advocated banning all
abortions. You cannot do that because we have never advocated banning all
abortions. You, have advocated for allowing women to have abortions on demand,
which is against LDS teachings.You have constantly advocated
policies and laws that force people to chose what your and your ilk deem is
right. You oppose allowing people to decide for themselves how they will live
their lives, and deny people the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own
merits.You support socialism, which destroys the agency of man, and
has been denounced by multiple prophets.