Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

[CharlesBarkley]

Damn. Robert is ahead of the curve.
View attachment 2192482

"As I sit in my expensive loft downtown and watch the city skyline burn a few blocks away from me, I drink an exquisite glass of red wine and stare at the orange glow. Laughing, I wipe the sweat from my brow (I just got off the Peloton I used for ten minutes) and think about how we are just getting back to a pre-Trump world. A world where I and my friends can get Starbucks before our work commute to Google without the nonstop terrible news that black people are being genocided by the police. A world where all my friends and I can live in peace from the horrible creatures I have never seen in real life, but are on the news where they tried to siege the government.

It's a long way to go, my friends. But we are getting there. We will once again rise like kings and live like the 80's CEOs of media, only rotating between cocaine-fueled sex parties and to rule over the plebs who despise us for our greatness. We will be there once more"
- Moviebob before dying from a heart attack after eating Taco Bell flavored fried-dew Chicken in a basement surrounded by toys, unloved by the people he sucked off 24/7 who called him a fat hobgoblin behind his back.

 

[blablabla]

bob was probably fired for creeping out the girl in that access tv show

 

[Karl der Grosse]

My personal take is Fearless Girl means "Women are bad for the economy." I don't personally hold that, but I do know what a bull means in the context of the stock market.

I see it as showing that a pure and fearless heart can successfully face down a rampaging bull market, which happens to be true.

 

[EnemyStand]

Really? It's from his book. I quoted this passage before, I think @Adamska has also gone over it recently.

From Brick by Brick:

I’d never gotten much of a sense that anything was especially “off” about the guy running the show. I knew he was fairly conservative politically – ex-military and an ex-cop – but it had never come up in any kind of negative way. But upon the release of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” and the controversy surrounding it something seemed to change in him. I was fairly certain both co-hosts knew that I’d seen the film and hadn’t cared for it, and expected it would make a good show when we sat down to review it. Instead, I got a phone call, and an unnervingly scary life experience.​

​

My employer (though, for the record, I wasn’t technically being “paid” for my services on the show) summoned me to a “meeting” in his van, in an empty parking lot early in the morning. He did freelance security work (or he said he did, at least), and was “on the job.” This set off more red flags than I could count, but I showed up to meet him. He presented me with a printout of a scathing blog review I’d posted after seeing the film the first time, and wanted to know what I had “against Jesus Christ.” Unwisely, I offered that my objection was to the anti-Semitism in the film and was told “Those people had ‘Schindler’s List,’ now this is our turn”… I was then told that he would be using the “Passion” discussion as an occasion to promote the film’s “positive message,” and that if I wouldn’t go along (by saying I liked the movie) my time on the show would be over.​

​

And that was that. I never heard from the guy again, but I know his show didn’t last long without me. I’m told he’d behaved in a manner (because it’s hearsay I won’t get into specifics) that disturbed the production staff during the taping of the “Passion” episode, and that my name had come up, which had me walking around more than a little paranoid for a few weeks; but nothing ever came of it.​

I need to say this: any idiot with any knowledge of the security industry could tell you that ex-cop/ex-military often work for security contractors. The gig was unlikely to be freelance,(you need a state ID to work security) and the reason he likely had Bob come by "early in the morning" (which could have been 10 am for all we know) was so he wouldn't get written up for having a visitor on-site. Was the lot empty? Most likely, probably because the Wal-Mart wasn't open yet. And if the dude had a long shift, well that was the best time to talk about the show for him since contract services tend to work people to death to cover their accounts. Bob's trying to spin this as creepy, but anyone with one iota of security industry knowledge would know better.

 

[Adamska]

I need to say this: any idiot with any knowledge of the security industry could tell you that ex-cop/ex-military often work for security contractors. The gig was unlikely to be freelance,(you need a state ID to work security) and the reason he likely had Bob come by "early in the morning" (which could have been 10 am for all we know) was so he wouldn't get written up for having a visitor on-site. Was the lot empty? Most likely, probably because the Wal-Mart wasn't open yet. And if the dude had a long shift, well that was the best time to talk about the show for him since contract services tend to work people to death to cover their accounts. Bob's trying to spin this as creepy, but anyone with one iota of security industry knowledge would know better.

Right then, so that makes the following scenario more likely:

Passion comes out, and Bob being Bob decides to ramble and burble a longwinded rant disguised as a review on his shitty blog. Actually let me check...

INTERESTING. He seemingly deleted that Passion Review from his review blog of old. Oh, he violently slings mud on it multiple times in reference, but notice he doesn't have that review up. Something tells me he fucking knows he went too goddamn far and waddled back when he got clapped back to the point he lost his job.

So because he was a gutless coward who deleted at least two items on his blog of fail, here's a few deleted articles Google capped and still has as search results anyway anyway. I'll provide links after copy+pasting said articles below:

​

Spoiler: Four Questions for supporters of "The Passion"

I'll be seeing and reviewing the new "Passion Recut" sometime this weekend, as soon as I see it. As a warmup for what I'm positive will be a genial and pleasant exchange with readers amd fellow bloggers across the web, devoid entirely of anger, namecalling, people accusing other people of being "paranoid" and use of the term "secularist" as a put-down (thanks, Bill O'Reilly,) I was considering posting my old pre-blog review of the original-release version of "Passion." Finding it, however, too be a bit on the long side, I've decided instead to post this and hope that maybe some "Passion" fans can enlighten me:

What follows are five detailed questions pertaining to aspects of the film, it's content, it's popularity and it's controversy that I'm still having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around. Usually, whenever I bring these up I'm either accused of trying to incite anti-Christian bias or told that I "just don't get it." Very well, help me get it. Let's all pretend for a minute that we're still living in the Age of Reason and have an exchange over this instead of calling names. I'm serious. If you're a fan of "The Passion," give me an answer to some or all of these questions, I'm genuinely curious to hear from you:

WHY is "The Passion's" endless, ultra-explicit violence acceptible for children but the similar violence of other films is not?
I realize that not every Christian parent thought it necessary to subject their kid to this film, and if you're one of them, please excuse yourself from this question. Those who DID, though... seriously, explain this to me. Down the line, Christian leaders are always at the forefront of trying to censor and remove extremem violence from films, but on this one most were largely silent? Why? Why were the same "family movie reviewers" who've been telling me for years that every violent film "could have stood to be less explicit" now telling me that "Passion's" highly-fetishized ultraviolence is 100% necessary to "understanding" the message. Does this mean that violence is okay for children so long as it's pushing a Religious message? If so, can I now show "The Exorcist" (a totally in-line pro-Christian anti-Satanic film) to an audience of preschoolers if I so choose to? Just asking...

WHY does the use of "extrabiblical" material here not upset those who were furious about "The Last Temptation of Christ?"
The constant line I hear again and again about "Passion" is that it's wrong to criticize it's storytelling because "it's taken directly from The Gospels." But the thing is, it's not. Nowhere in any of the "accepted" four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,) do I recall the presence of Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, as we see in the film. Nor is there any mention of the Sanhedrin soldiers throwing Christ off a bridge en-route to the judgement of Caipphas. Nor does any accepted Gospel describe Judas being assaulted by an "Evil Dead"-like ghoul under said bridge, or being hounded into suicide by an army of goblin-faced toddlers unleashed by Lucifer. Not even in the quirky-details-laden Gospel of Luke will you find any tale of Jesus inventing Tall Tables. Out of four Gospels, only one describes a pre-crucifixtion flaying even remotely approaching the horror show in Gibson's film, and at least one seems devoid of pre-execution torture entirely; and NONE of them say anything about Satan slithering around among the Temple Elders (there's not even much Gospel evidence for the presence of the Elders themselves at the actual scourging) to show off a Chucky-like demon baby. The film also presents Mary Magdalene and the rescued-prostitute to be the same character, and while thats a mistake most adaptations make it's still a mistake.

Now, I'm not questioning Gibson's right to artistic invention in the film, I'm merely asking for fairness: Gibson has PACKED his film with cinematic invention, coded references to pre-Vatican II Catholic imagery and documents (particularly "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," a 19th Century record of Sister Mary Catherine Emmerich's fever-dream induced visions of the crucifixtion, now regarded as discredited by the Mother Church, from whence the "bridge-drop" scene is taken) but he maintains that his film is "based on the Gospels" and his defenders repeat it as, well, gospel. But Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" contains a approximate amount of Biblical contradiction (actually less so, since in that film the Biblical-inconsistencies are eventually revealed to be a dream of Christ's) and continues to be savaged by Christian film critics for these "blasphemies." All I want is clarification, folks.

WHY have Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians embraced the film when it's presentation of Christianity is so explicity Catholic?
There are certain things about Catholicism that most Protestant sects (Lutheranism and Methodism in particular, if I recall) are supposed to regard as, at best, heresy. Chief among these are the veneration of the Virgin Mary (believed to have been based on co-opted paganistic earth-goddess imagery rather than any scriptural basis and thus rejected by Martin Luther's "back-to-basics" movement) and the "Stations of The Cross," (a Catholic traditional of ritual-theater involving instances with little or no scriptural basis,) both of which are present and soundly accounted-for in "The Passion." Gibson even places Mary and Jesus posed in a "pieta," a scene popularized in Renaissance art but appearing nowhere in scripture.

Again, it's Gibson's right to make an expressly Catholic version of the story, but then why was the film so heavily supported by the predominantly-Potestant "evangelical" movement when so much of it's content is regarded by many Protestant faiths as, at best, a corruption of scripture fundamentals? If the answer is, "we wanted to show support for a Christian film, even if it's a vision of Christianity we don't 100% agree with," then fine, I can accept that. But, if so, does that not make the success of the film less the story of a film-appreciation movement or even a religious movement and more the story of a political point-scoring movement?

And, finally...

WHAT is a non-believer, a skeptic, follower of another faith or just anyone not intimately-familiar with the material supposed to get out of this film?
The crucifixtion is the climax to, it is said, "the greatest story ever told." It's supposed to be the hammering, drive-the-point-home trump card to the story of a man's life considered so profound that if introduced to it by a convincing enough evangelist one is intended to fall to their knees, humbled by the sudden realization that the man described is the Son of God himself. Evangelism, the winning of converts and new believers, is the key mission of Christians individually and Christianity itself. The reason the term "preaching to the choir" is supposed to be such a condemndation is because it's exactly what Christianity is NEVER supposed to do: The faith is, above all else, meant to be accesible and open to ALL who would hear the Truth. Above all else, the evangelist mission of their faith forbids Christians from keeping Christ to themselves, treating The Word as something that is only to be heard and appreciated by those who are already "in the club."

But this is exactly what "The Passion" does. It treats Jesus and His story as a speciality item, a niche-market curiosity to be appreciated and enjoyed only by those who already "get it." The miracles He performed? We see none of them. The message He spread? We hear a tiny bit of the Sermon on The Mount. For two hours plus, we see an actor dressed as Christ being flayed alive, and not once does the film remind us why he's doing it. Redeeming the sins of mankind? You'll only know it if you've already accepted that going in, otherwise we're treated to a film that is essentially two hours of simulated sadomasochistic torture-pornography, leaving us with the notion that He is to be worshiped... why, exactly? Because he could take a punch well? What's supposed to be the most moving tale of personal sacrifice in the entirety of human history is reduced to a simplistic action-movie cliche: The hero we side with on the sole basis of his ability to endure pain and seemingly beg for more. By the logic of "The Passion," the criteria for Lamb-of-God-hood should make Uma Thurman's "The Bride" from "Kill Bill," Jet Li's "Nameless" from "Hero" and every action hero Mel Gibson has ever played equally-qualified for the role of Savior; and with no disrespect to those fine characters I think Christ perhaps deserves slightly better company.

There's a basic rule of storytelling and filmmaking at work here, folks: You can't rely on visceral "ooh! That looks like it hurts!" gut-reaction pity to inspire pity and connection from the audience; you need to give them a reason to care or at least a character worth caring about. Taken on it's own, as a work of filmmaking, "Passion" fails to do these things: From where I'm standing, this is a cheap shock-show for makeup-FX torture, not some kind of transcendant religious experience unless you're already "on the bus," in which case it's simply missing the point.

So there they are, my four BIG issues with "Passion" in question form. If you've got answers, I'm waiting to hear them.

Link here for what the fuck you just unspoilered.

And here's fail article 2:

Spoiler: Is the "Passion-Effect" continuing?

“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” -- Thomas Jefferson, Sept. 23 1800.

You may have been able to expunge it from your memory, but you may recall that the big "hoped-for" impact of Mel Gibson's religious-fundamentalist (and, in my view, nominally anti-semetic) torture-porn epic "The Passion of The Christ" from it's most fervent supporters was that it would "prove" to Hollywood the existence of a massive Christian-hardline audience and that more of the overall film output would begin to be catered to them. As you may have guessed, in my opinion there's already too much influence by extreme-religiousity on American culture, so this is was a concern of mine as well.

While it's not only true but also grossly-underreported that the majority of American faithful are good and decent people, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of faith-based leaders, lobbyists and special-interest groups; which were of course the very machines propping up "their" manufactured hit in "The Passion." Most such groups are pushing not for faith and/or "morality" but instead for political agendas in the anti-freedom vein. Also, their usual reccomendations for "improving" Hollywood product: purging out curse words, nudity, sex; inserting cloying moral messages, using film to prop up their belief to the exclusion of all others, etc., would result in movies that really really really SUCK. Which is the real problem.

I was sort of hoping that the failure of Hollywood to bow before the pressure and shower "Passion" with undeserved accolades in the awards season would be the end of the dream, at least in large part. But now comes this story from Sharon Waxman of the New York Times, laying out the apparent rumblings of a movement towards, if not the "Christianizing" of the U.S. film industry, at least a troubling development to those of us who truly value freedom (they once called us "Americans") and have the historical acumen to recall what becomes of freedom when the type of religiousity espoused by the Passionistas becomes any kind of formidable cultural force.

Here's Waxman's original peice, courtesy the NYT by way of the International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/business/christians.php

As my feelings about such have likely come up before, I'll just say for the record that YES, it does in fact bug me to be quoting the NYT for this. If I want to read DNC talking points, I'll just read DNC talking points is the usual extent of my "use" for said newspaper, but this time around Waxman's peice is stocked by a good deal of quotes and free from much editorializing, so I'll let it aboard.

From the article:
"Mel Gibson did us a service," said Bob Waliszewski, a media specialist with Focus on the Family"

Focus on The Family is a militantly anti-choice, anti-gay rights organization, fronted by anti-freedom juggernaut Dr. James Dobson. Just thought I'd bring that up. Here's their website, be forewarned about the vitriol of some of the content:
http://www.family.org/

The article then segues into a discussion of the biggest publicity "coup" for this so-called movmement: Disney's very public wooing of marketing firms aimed at mollifying the evangelical audience for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The With & The Wardrobe."

"Paul Lauer, who on his Web site calls himself an expert in the "faith and family" market, has been hired to work on "The Chronicles of Narnia," based on the C.S. Lewis literary fantasies, which Christian groups regard as an explicit allegory of Christ's Resurrection."

As I blogged before, thus far this has seemed to me to be a development that is a touch troubling in the overall but does not negatively reflect on the film proper at this time. Despite the creepiness of marketing a children's film in the same manner as the ghastly "Passion," a simple formulation thus far holds for me: The marketing is the marketing, and any niche you have to hit to sell the film should be considered. The problem with "Passion" in this case is that it actually was the creepshow propaganda it was often marketed to be. Thus far, I see no such indication from the makers of this film.

Now, I want something understood here: I don't have a big problem with fundamentalist Christians having movie marketing aimed at them. Hollywood exploits everyone else's hobbies and interests for marketing, so why shouldn't they have that "fun," too?

No, my issue is that films may be hurt and creativity stifled in an attempt to appeal to a market bloc that has not really been historically condusive to creative freedom. And that's where the worrisome stuff begins to creep up:

"In some cases, such customizing has meant sanding the edges off dialogue that might offend churchgoers."

Uh-oh.

And before anyone brings it up, YES I am equally offended when film dialogue gets a polish to avoid offending ANY special-interest group.

"For example, the actor Peter Sarsgaard, speaking at a tribute to his work during the Seattle Film Festival recently, said he was instructed to strike the word "Jesus" from his dialogue during shooting this year of the forthcoming Disney thriller "Flightplan."

I'm sorry, but that is simply total and utter CRAP. You cannot just yank every line that MIGHT offend someone, you'll be left with no lines.

"They said: 'You can't say that. You can't take the Lord's name in vain,"' Sarsgaard said he was told by the film's producers. He said he offered to say the line more reverently, but "they wouldn't buy it. I had to say 'shoot,' and that isn't as good."

"You can't take the Lord's name in vain????" This came from a film producer's mouth as an instruction to an actor? This is faith-based censorship of the worst kind, and the makers of this film should NOT have either stood for it or engaged in it. The makers of the film (which looks pretty awful anyway, no?) should hang their heads in shame for selling out the integrity of their art like this. Disgusting.

Still, the article isn't ALL bad news:

"There's definitely more of an awareness, but it's just another group to be marketed to, albeit a very strong one, with incredible grass-roots tentacles," said Russell Schwartz, president of theatrical marketing at New Line Cinema, a Time-Warner company."

That's what, in my estimation, the prevailing studio additude ought to be: It's fine to attend the party, just don't drink the Kool-Aid. Big applause to New Line Cinema.

And then there's always the issue of one of the more amusing bits of hypocritical behavior by the so-called "Christian-Right"... their often-noted warm relations to movie violence in spite of their often-noted dislike for movie sex:

"And just to complicate matters, a new study by a leading Hollywood marketing firm, MarketCast, suggested that not only do American Christians watch mainstream entertainment, but the most conservative among them are also drawn to violent fare."

Wow, didn't see that one coming, eh folks?

"What you find is that people with conservative religious doctrine are the most likely to see movies rated R for violence. If you compared it to liberals, it's a third more."

Hypocrisy, you say?? In a religious movement???

Ahem.

Now, lest some of you determine I'm unfairly focusing on "conservatives" here, let it be known I've got JUST as much disdain for anyone making anti-freedom waves on the "liberal" side.

For example, they don't come much more "liberal" than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has embarked on a crusade to bring down the hammer of the FCC on the video game industry:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3267154

"Clinton compared the sale of violent and pornographic video games to that of alcohol and tobacco and said it was time for a law "with real teeth."

Put aside any thoughts of the 2008 election or your own political preferences for a moment and ask yourself something: Can you fathom ANYTHING for anti-freedom or anti-artistic than this notion? That entirely subjective IDEAS might need to be regulated as "harmful" the way drugs or stimulants are? Think about it: Under that logic, ANY creation of art, literature, whatever, could be found "harmful" on unprovable illogical grounds and subject to government regulation. Does just the sound of that scare the bejesus out of anyone but me? Just asking...

Of course, this is largely a ploy on Clinton's part. She's running (yes, I know what she's said and I don't care trust me she's running) for the 08 presidential nomination of her party, and she knows she needs to woo "moderates" to do so. And "moderates" can be most effectively wooed by Hillary trying to look "traditional" on social issues.

So she's picked up the pro-censorship flag, which makes sense for two reasons: It'll WORK (no modern myth terrifies the weak-minded more than the idea of GTA turning their lil' precious into a Columbine killer) and it still fits in the perameters of her actual politics ("it needs more government regulation" being the default-position for Senate Democrats on just about everything, after all.)

Not that I was ever all that fond of Mrs. Clinton to begin with, but it needs to be said: A proponent of censorship is a proponent of censorship is a proponent of censorship. Supporting and especially advocating such an infringement creative expression makes her every bit the enemy of freedom that James Dobson, Pat Robertson and the Passionistas are.

Link here to the piece of shit you just unspoilered.

In short, I suspect these are the two articles Bob shat out that got him fired since he deleted them. Either that or he again proved he's a coward who hides behind others, but didn't have that army to do that with yet.

 

[Boston Brand]

Really? It's from his book. I quoted this passage before, I think @Adamska has also gone over it recently.

From Brick by Brick:

I’d never gotten much of a sense that anything was especially “off” about the guy running the show. I knew he was fairly conservative politically – ex-military and an ex-cop – but it had never come up in any kind of negative way. But upon the release of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” and the controversy surrounding it something seemed to change in him. I was fairly certain both co-hosts knew that I’d seen the film and hadn’t cared for it, and expected it would make a good show when we sat down to review it. Instead, I got a phone call, and an unnervingly scary life experience.​

​

My employer (though, for the record, I wasn’t technically being “paid” for my services on the show) summoned me to a “meeting” in his van, in an empty parking lot early in the morning. He did freelance security work (or he said he did, at least), and was “on the job.” This set off more red flags than I could count, but I showed up to meet him. He presented me with a printout of a scathing blog review I’d posted after seeing the film the first time, and wanted to know what I had “against Jesus Christ.” Unwisely, I offered that my objection was to the anti-Semitism in the film and was told “Those people had ‘Schindler’s List,’ now this is our turn”… I was then told that he would be using the “Passion” discussion as an occasion to promote the film’s “positive message,” and that if I wouldn’t go along (by saying I liked the movie) my time on the show would be over.​

​

And that was that. I never heard from the guy again, but I know his show didn’t last long without me. I’m told he’d behaved in a manner (because it’s hearsay I won’t get into specifics) that disturbed the production staff during the taping of the “Passion” episode, and that my name had come up, which had me walking around more than a little paranoid for a few weeks; but nothing ever came of it.​

​

The job Robert is talking about:

​

Meanwhile, my second Blockbuster job led me to what seemed at the time like a stroke of great fortune: an older gentleman (who will remain nameless) came in asking if he could leave some flyers—turns out, he was starting up a film criticism show for local cable-access television and was looking for on-air talent. Store policy said I had to tell him no, but it said nothing about me volunteering for the position myself. After a set of meetings and conversations, I was hired to do the show along with this person and a female co-host. The resulting show was… what you’d expect from local cable, but it was exposure and a chance to work on my “craft,” such as it was. I was the colorful member of the team, the younger guy with the wild opinions and the deeper film knowledge. It was a fun time… while it lasted.​

Has anyone actually been able to find any footage or proof of this TV show he was supposedly on?

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Damn. Robert is ahead of the curve.
View attachment 2192482

Don Lemon is explicitly political. Like Bob, he rewrites his personal history to paint himself in the best possible light.

 

[King Dead]

Right then, so that makes the following scenario more likely:

Passion comes out, and Bob being Bob decides to ramble and burble a longwinded rant disguised as a review on his shitty blog. Actually let me check...

INTERESTING. He seemingly deleted that Passion Review from his review blog of old. Oh, he violently slings mud on it multiple times in reference, but notice he doesn't have that review up. Something tells me he fucking knows he went too goddamn far and waddled back when he got clapped back to the point he lost his job.

So because he was a gutless coward who deleted at least two items on his blog of fail, here's a few deleted articles Google capped and still has as search results anyway anyway. I'll provide links after copy+pasting said articles below:

​

Spoiler: Four Questions for supporters of "The Passion"

I'll be seeing and reviewing the new "Passion Recut" sometime this weekend, as soon as I see it. As a warmup for what I'm positive will be a genial and pleasant exchange with readers amd fellow bloggers across the web, devoid entirely of anger, namecalling, people accusing other people of being "paranoid" and use of the term "secularist" as a put-down (thanks, Bill O'Reilly,) I was considering posting my old pre-blog review of the original-release version of "Passion." Finding it, however, too be a bit on the long side, I've decided instead to post this and hope that maybe some "Passion" fans can enlighten me:

What follows are five detailed questions pertaining to aspects of the film, it's content, it's popularity and it's controversy that I'm still having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around. Usually, whenever I bring these up I'm either accused of trying to incite anti-Christian bias or told that I "just don't get it." Very well, help me get it. Let's all pretend for a minute that we're still living in the Age of Reason and have an exchange over this instead of calling names. I'm serious. If you're a fan of "The Passion," give me an answer to some or all of these questions, I'm genuinely curious to hear from you:

WHY is "The Passion's" endless, ultra-explicit violence acceptible for children but the similar violence of other films is not?
I realize that not every Christian parent thought it necessary to subject their kid to this film, and if you're one of them, please excuse yourself from this question. Those who DID, though... seriously, explain this to me. Down the line, Christian leaders are always at the forefront of trying to censor and remove extremem violence from films, but on this one most were largely silent? Why? Why were the same "family movie reviewers" who've been telling me for years that every violent film "could have stood to be less explicit" now telling me that "Passion's" highly-fetishized ultraviolence is 100% necessary to "understanding" the message. Does this mean that violence is okay for children so long as it's pushing a Religious message? If so, can I now show "The Exorcist" (a totally in-line pro-Christian anti-Satanic film) to an audience of preschoolers if I so choose to? Just asking...

WHY does the use of "extrabiblical" material here not upset those who were furious about "The Last Temptation of Christ?"
The constant line I hear again and again about "Passion" is that it's wrong to criticize it's storytelling because "it's taken directly from The Gospels." But the thing is, it's not. Nowhere in any of the "accepted" four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,) do I recall the presence of Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, as we see in the film. Nor is there any mention of the Sanhedrin soldiers throwing Christ off a bridge en-route to the judgement of Caipphas. Nor does any accepted Gospel describe Judas being assaulted by an "Evil Dead"-like ghoul under said bridge, or being hounded into suicide by an army of goblin-faced toddlers unleashed by Lucifer. Not even in the quirky-details-laden Gospel of Luke will you find any tale of Jesus inventing Tall Tables. Out of four Gospels, only one describes a pre-crucifixtion flaying even remotely approaching the horror show in Gibson's film, and at least one seems devoid of pre-execution torture entirely; and NONE of them say anything about Satan slithering around among the Temple Elders (there's not even much Gospel evidence for the presence of the Elders themselves at the actual scourging) to show off a Chucky-like demon baby. The film also presents Mary Magdalene and the rescued-prostitute to be the same character, and while thats a mistake most adaptations make it's still a mistake.

Now, I'm not questioning Gibson's right to artistic invention in the film, I'm merely asking for fairness: Gibson has PACKED his film with cinematic invention, coded references to pre-Vatican II Catholic imagery and documents (particularly "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," a 19th Century record of Sister Mary Catherine Emmerich's fever-dream induced visions of the crucifixtion, now regarded as discredited by the Mother Church, from whence the "bridge-drop" scene is taken) but he maintains that his film is "based on the Gospels" and his defenders repeat it as, well, gospel. But Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" contains a approximate amount of Biblical contradiction (actually less so, since in that film the Biblical-inconsistencies are eventually revealed to be a dream of Christ's) and continues to be savaged by Christian film critics for these "blasphemies." All I want is clarification, folks.

WHY have Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians embraced the film when it's presentation of Christianity is so explicity Catholic?
There are certain things about Catholicism that most Protestant sects (Lutheranism and Methodism in particular, if I recall) are supposed to regard as, at best, heresy. Chief among these are the veneration of the Virgin Mary (believed to have been based on co-opted paganistic earth-goddess imagery rather than any scriptural basis and thus rejected by Martin Luther's "back-to-basics" movement) and the "Stations of The Cross," (a Catholic traditional of ritual-theater involving instances with little or no scriptural basis,) both of which are present and soundly accounted-for in "The Passion." Gibson even places Mary and Jesus posed in a "pieta," a scene popularized in Renaissance art but appearing nowhere in scripture.

Again, it's Gibson's right to make an expressly Catholic version of the story, but then why was the film so heavily supported by the predominantly-Potestant "evangelical" movement when so much of it's content is regarded by many Protestant faiths as, at best, a corruption of scripture fundamentals? If the answer is, "we wanted to show support for a Christian film, even if it's a vision of Christianity we don't 100% agree with," then fine, I can accept that. But, if so, does that not make the success of the film less the story of a film-appreciation movement or even a religious movement and more the story of a political point-scoring movement?

And, finally...

WHAT is a non-believer, a skeptic, follower of another faith or just anyone not intimately-familiar with the material supposed to get out of this film?
The crucifixtion is the climax to, it is said, "the greatest story ever told." It's supposed to be the hammering, drive-the-point-home trump card to the story of a man's life considered so profound that if introduced to it by a convincing enough evangelist one is intended to fall to their knees, humbled by the sudden realization that the man described is the Son of God himself. Evangelism, the winning of converts and new believers, is the key mission of Christians individually and Christianity itself. The reason the term "preaching to the choir" is supposed to be such a condemndation is because it's exactly what Christianity is NEVER supposed to do: The faith is, above all else, meant to be accesible and open to ALL who would hear the Truth. Above all else, the evangelist mission of their faith forbids Christians from keeping Christ to themselves, treating The Word as something that is only to be heard and appreciated by those who are already "in the club."

But this is exactly what "The Passion" does. It treats Jesus and His story as a speciality item, a niche-market curiosity to be appreciated and enjoyed only by those who already "get it." The miracles He performed? We see none of them. The message He spread? We hear a tiny bit of the Sermon on The Mount. For two hours plus, we see an actor dressed as Christ being flayed alive, and not once does the film remind us why he's doing it. Redeeming the sins of mankind? You'll only know it if you've already accepted that going in, otherwise we're treated to a film that is essentially two hours of simulated sadomasochistic torture-pornography, leaving us with the notion that He is to be worshiped... why, exactly? Because he could take a punch well? What's supposed to be the most moving tale of personal sacrifice in the entirety of human history is reduced to a simplistic action-movie cliche: The hero we side with on the sole basis of his ability to endure pain and seemingly beg for more. By the logic of "The Passion," the criteria for Lamb-of-God-hood should make Uma Thurman's "The Bride" from "Kill Bill," Jet Li's "Nameless" from "Hero" and every action hero Mel Gibson has ever played equally-qualified for the role of Savior; and with no disrespect to those fine characters I think Christ perhaps deserves slightly better company.

There's a basic rule of storytelling and filmmaking at work here, folks: You can't rely on visceral "ooh! That looks like it hurts!" gut-reaction pity to inspire pity and connection from the audience; you need to give them a reason to care or at least a character worth caring about. Taken on it's own, as a work of filmmaking, "Passion" fails to do these things: From where I'm standing, this is a cheap shock-show for makeup-FX torture, not some kind of transcendant religious experience unless you're already "on the bus," in which case it's simply missing the point.

So there they are, my four BIG issues with "Passion" in question form. If you've got answers, I'm waiting to hear them.

Link here for what the fuck you just unspoilered.

And here's fail article 2:

Spoiler: Is the "Passion-Effect" continuing?

“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” -- Thomas Jefferson, Sept. 23 1800.

You may have been able to expunge it from your memory, but you may recall that the big "hoped-for" impact of Mel Gibson's religious-fundamentalist (and, in my view, nominally anti-semetic) torture-porn epic "The Passion of The Christ" from it's most fervent supporters was that it would "prove" to Hollywood the existence of a massive Christian-hardline audience and that more of the overall film output would begin to be catered to them. As you may have guessed, in my opinion there's already too much influence by extreme-religiousity on American culture, so this is was a concern of mine as well.

While it's not only true but also grossly-underreported that the majority of American faithful are good and decent people, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of faith-based leaders, lobbyists and special-interest groups; which were of course the very machines propping up "their" manufactured hit in "The Passion." Most such groups are pushing not for faith and/or "morality" but instead for political agendas in the anti-freedom vein. Also, their usual reccomendations for "improving" Hollywood product: purging out curse words, nudity, sex; inserting cloying moral messages, using film to prop up their belief to the exclusion of all others, etc., would result in movies that really really really SUCK. Which is the real problem.

I was sort of hoping that the failure of Hollywood to bow before the pressure and shower "Passion" with undeserved accolades in the awards season would be the end of the dream, at least in large part. But now comes this story from Sharon Waxman of the New York Times, laying out the apparent rumblings of a movement towards, if not the "Christianizing" of the U.S. film industry, at least a troubling development to those of us who truly value freedom (they once called us "Americans") and have the historical acumen to recall what becomes of freedom when the type of religiousity espoused by the Passionistas becomes any kind of formidable cultural force.

Here's Waxman's original peice, courtesy the NYT by way of the International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/business/christians.php

As my feelings about such have likely come up before, I'll just say for the record that YES, it does in fact bug me to be quoting the NYT for this. If I want to read DNC talking points, I'll just read DNC talking points is the usual extent of my "use" for said newspaper, but this time around Waxman's peice is stocked by a good deal of quotes and free from much editorializing, so I'll let it aboard.

From the article:
"Mel Gibson did us a service," said Bob Waliszewski, a media specialist with Focus on the Family"

Focus on The Family is a militantly anti-choice, anti-gay rights organization, fronted by anti-freedom juggernaut Dr. James Dobson. Just thought I'd bring that up. Here's their website, be forewarned about the vitriol of some of the content:
http://www.family.org/

The article then segues into a discussion of the biggest publicity "coup" for this so-called movmement: Disney's very public wooing of marketing firms aimed at mollifying the evangelical audience for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The With & The Wardrobe."

"Paul Lauer, who on his Web site calls himself an expert in the "faith and family" market, has been hired to work on "The Chronicles of Narnia," based on the C.S. Lewis literary fantasies, which Christian groups regard as an explicit allegory of Christ's Resurrection."

As I blogged before, thus far this has seemed to me to be a development that is a touch troubling in the overall but does not negatively reflect on the film proper at this time. Despite the creepiness of marketing a children's film in the same manner as the ghastly "Passion," a simple formulation thus far holds for me: The marketing is the marketing, and any niche you have to hit to sell the film should be considered. The problem with "Passion" in this case is that it actually was the creepshow propaganda it was often marketed to be. Thus far, I see no such indication from the makers of this film.

Now, I want something understood here: I don't have a big problem with fundamentalist Christians having movie marketing aimed at them. Hollywood exploits everyone else's hobbies and interests for marketing, so why shouldn't they have that "fun," too?

No, my issue is that films may be hurt and creativity stifled in an attempt to appeal to a market bloc that has not really been historically condusive to creative freedom. And that's where the worrisome stuff begins to creep up:

"In some cases, such customizing has meant sanding the edges off dialogue that might offend churchgoers."

Uh-oh.

And before anyone brings it up, YES I am equally offended when film dialogue gets a polish to avoid offending ANY special-interest group.

"For example, the actor Peter Sarsgaard, speaking at a tribute to his work during the Seattle Film Festival recently, said he was instructed to strike the word "Jesus" from his dialogue during shooting this year of the forthcoming Disney thriller "Flightplan."

I'm sorry, but that is simply total and utter CRAP. You cannot just yank every line that MIGHT offend someone, you'll be left with no lines.

"They said: 'You can't say that. You can't take the Lord's name in vain,"' Sarsgaard said he was told by the film's producers. He said he offered to say the line more reverently, but "they wouldn't buy it. I had to say 'shoot,' and that isn't as good."

"You can't take the Lord's name in vain????" This came from a film producer's mouth as an instruction to an actor? This is faith-based censorship of the worst kind, and the makers of this film should NOT have either stood for it or engaged in it. The makers of the film (which looks pretty awful anyway, no?) should hang their heads in shame for selling out the integrity of their art like this. Disgusting.

Still, the article isn't ALL bad news:

"There's definitely more of an awareness, but it's just another group to be marketed to, albeit a very strong one, with incredible grass-roots tentacles," said Russell Schwartz, president of theatrical marketing at New Line Cinema, a Time-Warner company."

That's what, in my estimation, the prevailing studio additude ought to be: It's fine to attend the party, just don't drink the Kool-Aid. Big applause to New Line Cinema.

And then there's always the issue of one of the more amusing bits of hypocritical behavior by the so-called "Christian-Right"... their often-noted warm relations to movie violence in spite of their often-noted dislike for movie sex:

"And just to complicate matters, a new study by a leading Hollywood marketing firm, MarketCast, suggested that not only do American Christians watch mainstream entertainment, but the most conservative among them are also drawn to violent fare."

Wow, didn't see that one coming, eh folks?

"What you find is that people with conservative religious doctrine are the most likely to see movies rated R for violence. If you compared it to liberals, it's a third more."

Hypocrisy, you say?? In a religious movement???

Ahem.

Now, lest some of you determine I'm unfairly focusing on "conservatives" here, let it be known I've got JUST as much disdain for anyone making anti-freedom waves on the "liberal" side.

For example, they don't come much more "liberal" than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has embarked on a crusade to bring down the hammer of the FCC on the video game industry:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3267154

"Clinton compared the sale of violent and pornographic video games to that of alcohol and tobacco and said it was time for a law "with real teeth."

Put aside any thoughts of the 2008 election or your own political preferences for a moment and ask yourself something: Can you fathom ANYTHING for anti-freedom or anti-artistic than this notion? That entirely subjective IDEAS might need to be regulated as "harmful" the way drugs or stimulants are? Think about it: Under that logic, ANY creation of art, literature, whatever, could be found "harmful" on unprovable illogical grounds and subject to government regulation. Does just the sound of that scare the bejesus out of anyone but me? Just asking...

Of course, this is largely a ploy on Clinton's part. She's running (yes, I know what she's said and I don't care trust me she's running) for the 08 presidential nomination of her party, and she knows she needs to woo "moderates" to do so. And "moderates" can be most effectively wooed by Hillary trying to look "traditional" on social issues.

So she's picked up the pro-censorship flag, which makes sense for two reasons: It'll WORK (no modern myth terrifies the weak-minded more than the idea of GTA turning their lil' precious into a Columbine killer) and it still fits in the perameters of her actual politics ("it needs more government regulation" being the default-position for Senate Democrats on just about everything, after all.)

Not that I was ever all that fond of Mrs. Clinton to begin with, but it needs to be said: A proponent of censorship is a proponent of censorship is a proponent of censorship. Supporting and especially advocating such an infringement creative expression makes her every bit the enemy of freedom that James Dobson, Pat Robertson and the Passionistas are.

Link here to the piece of shit you just unspoilered.

In short, I suspect these are the two articles Bob shat out that got him fired since he deleted them. Either that or he again proved he's a coward who hides behind others, but didn't have that army to do that with yet.

The end of that second article is only more hilarious nowadays, considering how much full-throated support he gave yass kween Hillary when she was going up against the Bad Orange Man. Bob is so one-dimensional in his heroes vs. villains mentality that it literally doesn't matter what he's thought of someone in the past. As soon as he can frame them as the good guy fighting against the forces of evil, he'll throw his considerable weight behind them without question.

I can absolutely guarantee that if Hillary had been elected and spearheaded a censorship law like what he's talking about here, Bobbo would cheer her for standing up against those evil Gamergaters and mock them for losing their tiddy games and violent shooters. Bob's only principle is spite.

 

[EnemyStand]

Has anyone actually been able to find any footage or proof of this TV show he was supposedly on?

No, but it's public access. The tapes from the filming may no longer exist, and if they do tracking them down means we're going to be fucking with the cow on some level. So we have to take Bob's word for it. He's probably not lying about it, though, simply because amateur productions on the public access channel was the precursor to YouTube.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

If AOC suddenly was like "Hey, Israel is really good and I love Gamergate." Bob would instantly flock over to her and be like "Agreed, there were some ASPECTS (random bullshit long ass paragraph that makes no sense) with Gamergate and that your viewpoints are valid but visa vie est ouevure the body of gaming culture and a plethora of difference in our pop-culture and women in gaming." or some other nonsensical simp bullshit.

He simply can not have one viewpoint he stands solid on if it's a "popular "woman telling him the reverse. It's probably the biggest proof that he is a literal virgin.

Meme vaguely related:

 

[make_it_so]

That seems to be a common thing with consumerist nerds like Bob.

I’ve seen a lot of fat neckbeards, ugly nerd girls and every other type of dork you could think of who have this idea that world is their stage and they’re the hero of the story. Seriously, these people think their life is some Disney movie or some capeshit show.

But what I don’t understand is where does this mindset come from? Why do these people think they’re the main character or rather why do they want to be the main character?

Any thoughts?

Autism.

I'd say it goes a bit beyond that.

I think we currently live in a culture that cultivates and celebrates narcissism - the trans/gender special identity culture that's been spreading like wildfire is one expression of that. This attitude of "I am the hero of the story and I will slay the evil bad guys!" that we see with Bob and so many others on social media is another one.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Why do these people think they’re the main character or rather why do they want to be the main character?

It's the existence of sheeple can give that impression if you have any sense of individuality.

If you've ever had to use public transport a lot, you'd see mindless husks soullessly going through the motions. Up until a few years ago, the standard sheeple was the soy faced hipster bug eyed consoomer. Black rimmed glasses, ironic "nerd" t-shirt, hunched over the latest iPhone tweeting hot takes about latest capeshit while sipping a starbucks coffee.

ie. What Bob and Chris are now.

 

[cypocryphy]

I wonder how recently Bob looked those two up on Wikipedia.

I don't know who they are off of the top of my head, nor do I give a shit.

 

[make_it_so]

View attachment 2193172

I wonder how recently Bob looked those two up on Wikipedia.

I don't know who they are off of the top of my head, nor do I give a shit.

I know John Milius worked on Apocalypse Now, and he produced and directed Conan the Barbarian and Red Dawn, don't know who Boorman is.

 

[blablabla]

View attachment 2193172

I wonder how recently Bob looked those two up on Wikipedia.

I don't know who they are off of the top of my head, nor do I give a shit.

people who dont know who those are probably are fucking bob not searching wikipedia

 

[Jetpack Himmler]

Damn. Robert is ahead of the curve.
View attachment 2192482

Don Lemon is explicitly political. Like Bob, he rewrites his personal history to paint himself in the best possible light.

I often wonder if Don Lemon is a retard whenever I look in to his eyes because I see nothing but a gaping void whenever I look into them. One has to wonder if he gave the right people a blowjob to get to where he is now. Like Bob, he lives not in reality, but in an enclave that excludes anything that does conform to his cognitive biases. As for him being a journalist, he is about as much of one as Bob is a creative and but that I mean he isn't. Donnie boy is a talking head, and to be fair, I also see Tucker Carlson as one. Their job is give commentary and I have a hard time believing that some one as prissy as Don pounding the pavement looking for a story or looking into sources. Tim Pool may be a lolcow, but at least he went to the Occupy Wall Street protests, Ukraine, Egypt, and Venezuela to pursue stories once upon a time. Don is far too comfortable to leave the studio or his penthouse apartment to do real journalism. Hell, I don't think CNN even sends people into the field anymore.

Journalism, at least as far as Don or Bob understand it, is just going on Twitter to see what their colleagues are saying and it's an extremely incestuous relationship. Fuck, Don's CNN colleague, Brian Stelter's entire show is built on what Fox News is saying instead of actual journalism.

 

[Laughingjoke2]

Milius has writing credits for Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, and Jaws. While he directed Red Dawn and Conan the Barbarian.

Boorman directed Deliverance and Excalibur.

I'm not a Snyder fan but if Blobby was trying to insult him I'd say major fail especially given Snyder himself would probably take it as a compliment hell in BvS Excalibur was the film the Wayne family saw the night Thomas and Martha died.

 

[LordofCringe7206]

Bob is like a fat wind of autism, blowing only to whatever is deemed popular on Twitter. If AOC suddenly was like "Hey, Israel is really good and I love Gamergate." Bob would instantly flock over to her and be like "Agreed, there were some ASPECTS (random bullshit long ass paragraph that makes no sense) with Gamergate and that your viewpoints are valid but visa vie est ouevure the body of gaming culture and a plethora of difference in our pop-culture and women in gaming." or some other nonsensical simp bullshit.

He simply can not have one viewpoint he stands solid on if it's a "popular "woman telling him the reverse. It's probably the biggest proof that he is a literal virgin.

He's already flip-flopped on Gamergate several dozen times. And he has done it very blatantly too. The Russ Pitts firing wasn't the first time, but it was probably the most revealing one of them all. It really highlights everything that is wrong with Bob. His misery, his anger, his cowardice.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

Bob picks a fight with an anon, goes on to say if you call something a certain name eventually it will become that, and declares that drone strikes are peak manliness.

Spoiler: Drone Strikes Will Work

This quote tweet is referring to the comparison of the Russian hardcore army recruitment ad with the American I'm a woman with disabled lesbian mom and I went to college first before joining the army because I don't know how finances work army ad

https://twitter.com/KwiBer/status/1395977800855732227

https://archive.ph/RMnzn

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/1396175922974314496

https://archive.ph/2vIKF

Shout to up and comer Bob coomer, The Impossible Fapper!

https://twitter.com/KwiBer/status/1396179351885000707

https://archive.ph/OEoxi

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/1396206653880651787

https://archive.ph/GUyAs

"Especially if I can do it to fundies here AND muzzies over there"

I don't know who originally said it but you cannot patrol a street corner with a fighter jet. You need MEN on the field because they can go places and do things a Harrier, or Abrams, or Kodiak cannot go. This idea that everything's gonna be cyber attacks and drone strikes is asinine. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we are hit with a massive cyber attack. Then what? US has been Iranian super hacked and now there's no power to Philadelphia. Then what? The IRS is compromised and all tax returns are set loose. Then what? The plot of the second shittiest Die Hard movie happens IRL. THEN WHAT? I do not believe for a second America is going to be destroyed because of cyber shit. Would it hurt? Yeah, probably very much so. One thing I can almost guarantee is that they will not go after the financial sector like Wall Street because that's where all the world's money goes and that would be hurting them too. Once the deadly computer varrus goes forth and bricks all the Apple products the next step is invasion. You need strong people to, one, make the trip over here to our, essentially, island nation and, two, they need to be ready for the fight after that. In a fight between Russian skin head recruit and dykey, lesbian moms having staff sergeant, I'm putting my cheeki on the breeki. That's what people are having a problem with Bob. We are putting sissified faggots in our armed forces while ignoring the entirety of human history and please don't quote me any Sun Zu. They've read the Art of War as well.

Secondly, no. No matter how many times you say something it does not become truth. No matter how many times Bob's angels say their a woman does not get them one step closer to suddenly dropping their Y chromosome. No matter how much he and they scream "CLAP OR ELSE ALL THE TRANS KIDS WILL DIE FROM LACK OF PUBERTY BLOCKERS!" will not make it happen, either way. That's Tinkerbell logic. Did ya get that Bobbyboi? I used a Disney reference to make a point

Lastly, Bob's technically lying. Bob does not want war. He just want total eradication.

 

[Mola Ram]

Milius has writing credits for Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, and Jaws. While he directed Red Dawn and Conan the Barbarian.

Boorman directed Deliverance and Excalibur.

I'm not a Snyder fan but if Blobby was trying to insult him I'd say major fail especially given Snyder himself would probably take it as a compliment hell in BvS Excalibur was the film the Wayne family saw the night Thomas and Martha died.

I'm familiar with Boorman and Milius both. It's fucking gibberish. It's there to sound smart and impressive and erudite, but it's none of those things.