All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Religion, in its best possible permutation, is a collective search for truth, through the power of myth rather than of empirical observation. Myth and science are both integral parts of our understanding of the world. Religion can be used as an important transmitter of myth, or as a powerful system of control -- the latter is and has been extremely problematic in the world.
Consensual discussion, yes, definitely. There is no content in any religious belief I am aware of which merits being pushed upon those unwilling.
Again, I'm looking at this in the context of script threads and not the boards at large. It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game. Unlike other threads, script threads are supposed to benefit the writer. Once this ceases to be the case, it's obviously a problem but otherwise... fair game.
General discussions about religious have popped up before without the context of a script to structure it and obviously, they haven't ended (or began) well. But that's another story.
Again, I'm looking at this in the context of script threads and not the boards at large. It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game. Unlike other threads, script threads are supposed to benefit the writer. Once this ceases to be the case, it's obviously a problem but otherwise... fair game.
Also, in regards to the PM comment, I was being a bit cheeky but not entirely sarcastic. If people want to bitch at each other via PM, be my guest. It has nothing to do with the rest of us. Unfortunately, bitching back and forth via PM is about as effective at resolving conflict as bitching back and forth in real life.
Also, while threads about religion tend to be prefaced by some kind of argument between two (or more) people (which is not lost on me here), I still prefer to respond taking the topic seriously; I've no interest in getting in the middle of two people's back and forth.
I agree, a religious discussion is appropriate for religous scripts. I said the same thing in my other post. But as others have mentioned, these are rarely discussions. Discussions should benefit the writer. But two people going back and forth with each other isn't helpful to the writer. It takes the focus off of the script and onto two people's religous beliefs. And that's the problem that I've been seeing on the boards as of late.
And my apologies James if I drug you into an argument. That was not my intention. Was simply trying to defend myself against false accusations.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The purpose of this thread is to discuss religion's place on the boards. And I'm really enjoying this discussion. Learning lots about the boards and each member individually. I find it quite intriguing.
I completely disagree that a reviewer has a green light to impose their religious beliefs on a script review just because the script contains religious material.
Either a script is well written and engaging or it's not. If personal beliefs related to the subject matter become a factor in whether a script or film is well done, then you may as well open the checklist to guns, ghosts, politics, sexual preference,...
I don't recall any of the legitimate film critics interjecting their personal religious beliefs within their reviews of The Passion of the Christ.
I think there's a fine line between expressing your beliefs in a calm and well-mannered way and becoming the preacher of SS. Yes, I agree with these types of discussion as I am genuinely interested in what other members have to say about religion. However, to sit there and attempt to force your religion down someone's throat is a completely different matter. To me, it seems a little judgemental, which is not a practice I see fit for the boards. We shouldn't judge, whether we're religious or not.
By all means, have your opinion and express it, but when people disagree and tell you they don't appreciate the way you're conducting yourself, then back off. You've said your bit. Why bother to make a fuss?
I came to SS to discuss screenplays. If religion plays a part in a script, then go ahead and discuss it, but to sit there bashing the writer over the head because of your beliefs is taking things a bit too far. That's when you come across as a Preacher. Don't try and convert these threads to a church session.
If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game.
I'm gonna call BULLSHIT on this!
Discussion the religious elements in the script may be appropriate. Writing, you're going to hell for writing this is completely inappropriate.
At the risk of whoring one of my scripts (you all know how much I hate doing this), CrusaderVoice wrote a great review about The Devil's Jokebook. Despite the fact that the script went against what he was taught, he enjoyed the script. He was able to put his beliefs aside for a piece of fiction.
Unless the writer states that a script is based on a true story, everyone should accept it simply as fiction. The Unlikely scripts were obviously parodies. They're not trying to open up anyone's eyes. If you can't accept a script as a piece of fiction then you should consider Phil 12: 21-12: "Get thy fuck over it!"
I agree with Bogey and Phil that just because religion is dealt with in a script does not justify proselytizing some doctrine in the review. Treat the script on its own terms.
If it's clearly parody, treat it as such. Or don't read it if you can't handle that.
If it's a Christian themed script, don't start preaching Islamic Jihad in the review.
If it's a Muslim script don't preach about Jesus saving.
As far as science vs religion, while I am more of a science guy, it's not so clear that one is focused on truth and the other on superstition. I think various religious approaches do involve a search for truth, though through a different methodology. Yes, there other factors, such as satisfying certain psychological needs, but science is not exempt from that.
The history of science is littered with paradigms that were eventually overturned, but which were once held in very dogmatic way by most scientists.
We have plenty examples of that today, such as global warming. Man made global warming may be quite real, but most scientists remain skeptical about many of its claims. However, among "climate scientists" there is almost universal agreement about these claims.
Someone might argue that the difference is accounted for by the fact that "climate" scientists as specialists are in a better position to know, but it's also very evident that climate scientists brook no dissent among their own. Very much like an order of priests, actually.
I've personally known some climate scientists. In each case they were politically active before entering the field and brought an already established point of view. And that's generally how it works in that field, where "climate" scientists come into it with well established ideas. And those with contrary ideas are not going to get far. So it's less about a search for truth and more about arguing a perspective already held.
No doubt there are many fields in science like this. While I prefer scientific method, no one has a monopoly on truth.
James said a discussion of religion was warranted by religious content in a script. He's not saying that preaching or condemning is acceptable. Discussion is a reasonable and (relatively) calm presentation of ideas. I don't think anyone's saying that people should be encouraged to make pointless, hostile comments.
Quoted from Bogey
If personal beliefs related to the subject matter become a factor in whether a script or film is well done, then you may as well open the checklist to guns, ghosts, politics, sexual preference,...
Well, yes. Not relating to whether or not the script is well done -- these factors have no bearing on that -- but it's absolutely reasonable to mention your perception of these ideas if it strongly informs your reaction to the work.
Look at Kev's review of Safe House, for example -- there was a political perspective in the film that he disagreed with, it affected his enjoyment of the film, he commented on that. Doesn't change whether the film was effectively made, but it changes whether he as a viewer enjoyed it. Pertinent information.
Good call, Chris, but keep in mind the issue was not so much that I disagreed with the politics of the film(though I did) but that I thought the political explanation constructed has been so done to death that it's no longer original. I still love the movie Three Days of the Condor, but that kind of thing was fresh when it was made. At this point that kind of thing is just people parroting the same dogma. Lazy thinking and lazy writing.
Had an amateur submitted the script for Safe House here I would have been much kinder. As writers working together, when I read a script my intention is not to enjoy the story, but to hopefully find a way to help the writer improve the script. It's a huge difference.
I completely disagree that a reviewer has a green light to impose their religious beliefs on a script review just because the script contains religious material.
Quoted from dogglebe
Writing, you're going to hell for writing this is completely inappropriate.
This is so obviously not what I'm talking about. I don't condone or defend but rather condemn both scenarios. I really don't see what in my previous comments would lead anybody to believe I would advocate imposing religious beliefs on others or threats/abuse based on said beliefs. Utterly flabbergasted.
Fortunately, someone was able to clarify so I don't have to (thanks, dude)...
James said a discussion of religion was warranted by religious content in a script. He's not saying that preaching or condemning is acceptable. Discussion is a reasonable and (relatively) calm presentation of ideas. I don't think anyone's saying that people should be encouraged to make pointless, hostile comments.
I saw the word "consensual" used earlier. I suppose I'll amend my previous comments to include consent.
Let me know if you guys need another caveat or a hundred.