Saw the trailer, and it looks like an interesting concept. Love the whole parallel universe thing mixed with the whole victorian-type setting.
Although the whole atheist vs. religious authority is completely unnecessary. Seriously, they could have gone with any other other concept, and yet they choose this one. Sure, it worked in "V for Vendetta", and I didn't mind that, because it wasn't as blatant. But they make it a little more obvious from the statement above. Why?
It just bothers me.
p.s.-- And please don't just dismiss my comment because of the statement I made. I hate it when people get shut down just for defending and stating their beliefs. Although, many of them get shut down just because they're complete morons who like to start argmuents with other people.
But I'm not one of those people; I'm just stating my opinion, that's all. I don't want to start a fight. I try to avoid conflict as much as possible.
@WiseGuy487: Well, okay. If they could have chosen any concept, why not this one? Is it not a valid and pertinent issue to discuss? Is there another issue that should have framed the movie that would be more pertinent or more valid?
@braak: obviously not this one because it's a perversion of reality. it is the religious who are being constantly persecuted by the atheists when they're forced to teach actual science in schools, practice actual medicine in hospitals, dispense legally proscribed medicine in pharmacies, and recognize committed gay relationships as being more than just 'good friends.'
@tetracycloide: Oh, ha, thanks for lumping all of us together. Not all established faiths are like that. Say what the fuck you mean and don't beat around the bush; those of us in here who actually believe in something take offense when you make general statements like that.
@Smeagol92055: of course not all established faiths are like that. the leaders of some established faiths would have to belive they are all like that because it strengthens their case. the problem isn't that all religious people are like that, because they are not, or that some religious people are like that, because there's not that many of them. the problem is that the people that aren't let the people that are speak for them far to often.
@tetracycloide: Again, you make sweeping generalizations without anything to back your statements up. You obviously only know what you've been told and what you see on TV and in the news. I'm willing to venture that you're not a practicing member of any faith, or if you were, you're not anymore. In any case, you obviously don't know that churches and faiths are peopled with individuals and not just sheep that attack any opponent to their belief system. Sure, there are thousands of churches just like that all over the world, where anyone who questions the teachings of the institution is shunned by the other members who don't know enough of their own faith's doctrines to form their own opinions, but there are also vast numbers of informed people out there within the various systems of faith that take stands and stick up for themselves; of course they wouldn't be widely known about, since at that point they either leave their group in search of other informed members of their faiths, or they become leaders in their own right of their own groups.
To say "there's not many of them" is uninformed and ignorant; even if you somehow could back that statement up with any sort of statistic, it would still be wrong, because most people aren't as stupid as they let on to be, but fear of going against the crowd does amazing things to a person's psyche.
Your hypothesis is flawed and your statements are inflammatory; if you can't say something without making broad, sweeping generalizations and presuming to speak for other people (which is just pompous) then it's best if you just shut your mouth altogether.
@Smeagol92055: you've mixed up which group i was referring to when i said 'there's not many of them' by all accounts the live and let live crowd like yourself is the majority. i also freely acknowledge that they are the majority and point out, exactly as you do, that they are often overlooked because their more obnoxious brethren, if they can even so be called, are far more vocal and receive far more coverage in the popular press.
@Smeagol92055: i believe you're too easily conflating my mocking the message of the conservative, religious, political movement in the west with mocking all religions in general. perhaps i was not as clear as i could have been but this was not my intent.
i was born and raised conservative christian by conservative christians that included the portion of the bible which dictates that christian moral values only apply to other christians. that non-believers should not be expected to live up to or judge for not following the christian faith. that doing so was counter productive to the true meaning of christianity, to be christ like.
while i am not current a believer or practice of any religion i am not without an background in this subject. it is, in fact, my background that so readily leads me to mock so called 'conservative christians' moral/political agendas when it is so obvious to anyone who studied christ that institutionalizing christian moral values was not his way.
Jeez, there's already a bloated thread for this "yes there's a God no there's not" crap. The movie's not even out to justify these self important philosophical rants. It looks like another case of a trailer on io9 being an excuse for people to spout off half educated opinions.
I like a good debate as much as the next girl, but you guys are jumping the gun here.
Trench coats are cool apparently. Don't vigilantes in stylish dystopian futures/alternate worlds follow Edna Mode's rule for NO CAPES? Trench coats are pretty much like capes and seem really impractical for jumping across roofs and hand-to-hand combat.
@hopskipper: Yeah, gotta agree there. The real world gives lots of examples of this, when the fighting starts, the capes, sashes, scarves and coats come off--give nothing to your enemy or the environment to grab. The professional martial artists seem to have the best compromise baggy sleeves and legs for venting heat and freedom of movement but not too long to cause you trouble.
Okay, who here is waiting for the knee-jerk cries of outrage and condemnation from the ultra religious, who'll view this movie as just another pile of athiest propaganda endorsing the vilification and assasination of poor oppressed theists???
Actually, that implies the film makes it out in the US at all, and somebody explains the plot to them... since all I'm getting from that trailer is "confusing dystopian future where everybody dresses like that one guy from 'Starman.'"
@farcast: If you've had to add three things together, does it even count as derivative anymore? Less than a third of it is going to resemble any of those particular movies--isn't that below the threshold for "Yeah, lots of things resemble each other. So?"
@farcast: @farcast: @braak: You Sir make a good point. I hate people who say that 'this' is only really a copy of 'that', or 'that' is not original because it kinda has the same themes of 'this'.
Everything has already been done, finding a truly original idea these days is really hard. Every movie or show or idea, is just mixture of old concepts with different themes.
Heroes is X-men
Fringe is The X-Files
Neil Gaiman is always original
Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy of somthing.
Yet as an idea travels down the line, it them becomes something that is its own, and becomes something trully different, and fresh.
@evildead1971: sigh. yes yes yes. organized religion is terrible. Everyone else is manipulated and you're one of the only human beings smart enough to rise above. yes yes.
@Pope John Peeps II: comments like yours make me glad i don't believe in organized religion... cause i can strike you down withour fear of breaking any commandments
there comes a point in every person's life where they question their belief system and choose a different path
href="#c9985068">Pope John Peeps II: Isn't organized religion just a collection of people with similiar personal philosophys?
How many people beliving the same thing does it take to become a religion?
It is always interesting to see what kind of arguments people come up with when saying, with any sort of definitivness, that their answer is right, and reject all other definiations. Religion is in and of itself un-definable, because as I see it, if you can randomly put ten people in a room and ask them to come to an agreement as to what constitutes religion, and they can't do it, I don't think there can ever be a accepted definition.
Sure, you can have working definitions, but I think that is about as far as one can go. So, an atheist is about the only person who can claim to not have a part of religion, as it is the distinct lack of belief that defines them.
@zenpoet, aka johnny no star.: No, not at all. Religion is pretty definable. Just ask sociologists, or anthropologists. They have pretty clear cut definitions for it.
I think criteria #1 is probably that you have to believe in the existence of a spiritual power. If you don't, it's not a religion. It's just a "personal philosophy".
02/19/09
what do we mean by that?
eager to see the film!
02/19/09
02/19/09
Although the whole atheist vs. religious authority is completely unnecessary. Seriously, they could have gone with any other other concept, and yet they choose this one. Sure, it worked in "V for Vendetta", and I didn't mind that, because it wasn't as blatant. But they make it a little more obvious from the statement above. Why?
It just bothers me.
p.s.-- And please don't just dismiss my comment because of the statement I made. I hate it when people get shut down just for defending and stating their beliefs. Although, many of them get shut down just because they're complete morons who like to start argmuents with other people.
But I'm not one of those people; I'm just stating my opinion, that's all. I don't want to start a fight. I try to avoid conflict as much as possible.
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
I'm willing to venture that you're not a practicing member of any faith, or if you were, you're not anymore.
In any case, you obviously don't know that churches and faiths are peopled with individuals and not just sheep that attack any opponent to their belief system. Sure, there are thousands of churches just like that all over the world, where anyone who questions the teachings of the institution is shunned by the other members who don't know enough of their own faith's doctrines to form their own opinions, but there are also vast numbers of informed people out there within the various systems of faith that take stands and stick up for themselves; of course they wouldn't be widely known about, since at that point they either leave their group in search of other informed members of their faiths, or they become leaders in their own right of their own groups.
To say "there's not many of them" is uninformed and ignorant; even if you somehow could back that statement up with any sort of statistic, it would still be wrong, because most people aren't as stupid as they let on to be, but fear of going against the crowd does amazing things to a person's psyche.
Your hypothesis is flawed and your statements are inflammatory; if you can't say something without making broad, sweeping generalizations and presuming to speak for other people (which is just pompous) then it's best if you just shut your mouth altogether.
02/19/09
02/19/09
i was born and raised conservative christian by conservative christians that included the portion of the bible which dictates that christian moral values only apply to other christians. that non-believers should not be expected to live up to or judge for not following the christian faith. that doing so was counter productive to the true meaning of christianity, to be christ like.
while i am not current a believer or practice of any religion i am not without an background in this subject. it is, in fact, my background that so readily leads me to mock so called 'conservative christians' moral/political agendas when it is so obvious to anyone who studied christ that institutionalizing christian moral values was not his way.
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
"when you're a whig, you're a whig all the way
from your first state house seat to your last dyin' day!"
01/12/09
01/12/09
I like a good debate as much as the next girl, but you guys are jumping the gun here.
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
I wanted her to have a breakaway cape, precisely to trick thugs into trying to grab it. AHAH!
01/12/09
Actually, that implies the film makes it out in the US at all, and somebody explains the plot to them... since all I'm getting from that trailer is "confusing dystopian future where everybody dresses like that one guy from 'Starman.'"
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
Everything has already been done, finding a truly original idea these days is really hard. Every movie or show or idea, is just mixture of old concepts with different themes.
Heroes is X-men
Fringe is The X-Files
Neil Gaiman is always original
Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy of somthing.
Yet as an idea travels down the line, it them becomes something that is its own, and becomes something trully different, and fresh.
01/12/09
LOL.
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
organized religions are the worst
01/12/09
01/12/09
there comes a point in every person's life where they question their belief system and choose a different path
01/12/09
01/12/09
How many people beliving the same thing does it take to become a religion?
It is always interesting to see what kind of arguments people come up with when saying, with any sort of definitivness, that their answer is right, and reject all other definiations. Religion is in and of itself un-definable, because as I see it, if you can randomly put ten people in a room and ask them to come to an agreement as to what constitutes religion, and they can't do it, I don't think there can ever be a accepted definition.
Sure, you can have working definitions, but I think that is about as far as one can go. So, an atheist is about the only person who can claim to not have a part of religion, as it is the distinct lack of belief that defines them.
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09
I think criteria #1 is probably that you have to believe in the existence of a spiritual power. If you don't, it's not a religion. It's just a "personal philosophy".