Nate wrote:None of us have seen the movie. How do we know the atheist undertones are even still prevalent in it?
Sorry to keep mentioning those polar bears, but man, they're just too awesome.
Like Jurassic Park they may have dumbed down the atheism to the point where it's just "LOOK POLAR BEARS WEARING PLATE MAIL."
Let me put it this way. They marked down a movie about Jesus's life because young Jesus wandered away from His parents to go to the temple, if you all remember. They said it could inspire rebellion in children.
YEAH. Wrap your head around THAT one.
Sakura15 wrote:That is utterly ridiculous..Did they NOT read the bible?
Technomancer wrote:I don't know, the original author was plenty dumb already. Don't get me started on his meaningless jibber-jabber on chaos theory...
termyt wrote:The intent of the book’s author can and should affect whether or not you would want to see any movie. Knowing the author's intent is a valid reason to dismiss any book or movie.
at the very least, they will not want to support their young children digging deeper into the author's works.
While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.
While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.
In the end, what am I saying? Well, first. I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea to have some reservations about a movie based on the book. The books are obviously written from a very atheistic point of view, and Christians are right to be cautious about them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we NEED to be suspicious. But ultimately in the end, while the book is a good starting point for judging a movie's value, it's not the only standard, and the movie needs to be judged on its own merits, away from the book.
Technomancer wrote:Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.
It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.
Nate wrote:I think Technomancer was talking about Crichton, not Pullman in that statement. I don't know that much about chaos theory either, and it's been years since I've read Jurassic Park, so I'll let him respond to the question itself.
Technomancer wrote:It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.
Technomancer wrote:Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.
It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.
Vernhal wrote:I have about 5 friends who are devout christians and I trust. They all COMPLETELY missed the anti christian themes. Even in the last book.
'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]From an "ex-christian" standpoint, the books were very entertaining, far better than any other trilogy I've read so far in my opinion. (Then again, I haven't read too many...)
As for everyone else, I actually suggest you watch the movie or read the books, and make comparisons between the book and real life. In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.
But then again, that's only my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone or anything.
'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi] In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.
'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]Sorry. XD
I was told that although I am not a Christian, I can still... participate in the forums. I'm here more for the people, not what the people believe in.
You do have a point. I don't want to start a fight or anything, and I can see how this would.
I'll try to remember not to do anything like this again.
[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.
Monkey J. Luffy wrote:Aren't the polar bears called daemons too (with the A and the E combined) ? I find that a tad strange.
Return to General Entertainment
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 367 guests