Hollywood not in touch with morals, religion

[IDrinkaRum]

Hollywood isn't in touch with our morals or our religion! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081117/us_nm/us_poll)

The majority of Americans (according to the Anti-Defamation League) thinks Hollywood is out of touch with the "real America". They feel Hollywood's morals is out of sync with the rest of America and they think the media and Hollywood is bringing religion down (doesn't mention if the religion Americans are talking about is Christianity or not or just religion in general as in: "Hollywood hates all religions in America").

What does everyone else think?

[Boozy]

Do people pay money to see Hollywood movies?

Yes.

Do movies featuring sex, violence, and cursing make a profit?

Yes.

So I would say that a good portion of Americans have no problem with the morals they see depicted in movies.

[protege]

So I would say that a good portion of Americans have no problem with the morals they see depicted in movies.

I don't think it's so much that...but rather that they realize Hollywood is all about fantasy. Also, Hollywood will do whatever it takes to make a buck.

[Slytovhand]

OMG!!! You're kidding??

-- 61% of respondents agree that "religious values are under attack in this country," while 36% disagree with that statement.

63% disagree with the statement that "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," while only 22% agree with that point. When ADL conducted its first survey on anti-Semitic attitudes, in 1964, nearly half of the respondents believed that the television and film industries were run by Jews.
-- Nearly 40% support the notion that "dangerous ideas should be banned from public school libraries," and nearly the same number disagree with the statement that "censoring books is an old-fashioned idea."

-- Nearly half of those surveyed -- 49% -- believe that the United States is becoming "too tolerant in its acceptance of different ideas and lifestyles; 47% disagree with that statement.


Did you see those percentages??

And the 'almost half' comments...

Wow!

I mean - 'almost half' is about 140 Million...

And a mere 1000 people were able to tell us this!

After all, that's how many they surveyed....

(of course - if it's a phone poll, that automatically excludes anyone poor enough to own a phone.. or has been foreclosed on recently. Or are homeless. Or was actually out working when they rang. Oh, and apparently they only asked adults - so there goes our younger generation what they think of how thier view of the world is depicted).

Meh - crap 'survey'... crap presumptions.

[AFPheonix]

It also rules out those of us who have only a cell phone (which is a lot of younger adults these days) and are off the grid.

I'm sorry, but I don't think religious ideals are under attack. I think that this idea is reinforced by church leadership to have a cause to rally their flock around so they're easier to control. I know this because I've seen it firsthand when I was in the Plymouth Brethren. It can be quite effective.

Besides, it's easy to block out traditional media anymore. Especially in this day and age, you can really pick and choose what media you wish to view. I think Hollywood's influence is waning if anything.

[AdminAssistant]

Art reflects society, not vice versa.

Besides, Hollywood serves one purpose - to make money. Lots and lots of money. They need movies that sell well. What sells? Sex, violence, hot girls in tight, revealing clothing, massive special effects, adaptations, and glittery vampires (sorry, couldn't help myself :P).

The truth is that today, a moralizing tale lifted straight from the Bible (or Torah or Koran or...) is probably not going to make a lot of money unless it can incorporate some of the above elements.

[IDrinkaRum]

There are plenty stories from the Bible (not sure of the Koran or Torah or any other religious book) that have sex & violence.

The last movie I saw was "The Dark Knight". It was okay. I've also seen Iron Man & The Incredible Hulk.

Normally I just watch children videos & older movies. (Like from the silent film era to the 1960's). I prefer musicals from the 1940's to the 1960's. My favorite movie of all time is "Auntie Mame" from 1958.

I don't like a lot of the movies that are out today so I don't watch/rent them.

Don't like them? Don't think they are part of your "moral compass"? Then don't watch. Write to the studios to let them know you're disappointed. Be proactive. Don't whine and give your opinions in surveys.

Also, the bit about how books should be banned? That's scary. Very very scary.

[anriana]

Even if this was a well-conducted study, I wouldn't be alarmed at similar results (well, other than the book banning part - that is scary.) People try and make themselves look good on surveys. Obviously far more than 41% of Americans partake of Hollywood media, they're just too ashamed to own up to it an official survey.

Look at premarital sex - something like 96% of Americans participate in it, but how many people support abstinence only education? Far morethan 4%.

[Sylvia727]

The wording of the survey is slippery, too. As for "religious values"--is that the values unique to a specific religion, or is it moral values that most people, including most religious people, agree with? Murder is against religious values; so is women in the workplace. Which one is under attack?

[DrT]

I think it was in an episode of Penn and Teller 'Bullshit' that they had this professional surveyor ask the same question with two different wordings and get exactly the answer he wanted each time.
I recommand watching that to any who'd like to trust a poll again.

Now, I do agree that Hollywood is not in touch with morals and religion: that's why I enjoy watching movies. (albeit not all of them, far too many are crap, but still)
A flick that would actually be defending the idea of moral you find in religious books would very likely bore me to death.
Hollywood is about business, and they're good at it. I believe the wallet vote (the one that doesn't lie, or rarely at least) is vastly in their favor.

Now the part about the books.... good lord. 40% say it outright: it's outdated to censure books. Which means if you include the ones saying it because they're too scared of expressing their real opinion.... you reach the majority ?
Even if taking into account the (likely) event that the pollsters biased their sampling to get more of the religious/moral people into the mix, it's bloody scary.

[smileyeagle1021]

And a mere 1000 people were able to tell us this!

After all, that's how many they surveyed....
.

actually, assuming that the pollsters didn't bias the sample or the questions (not likely) 1000 would be more than enough to get an accurate result... you know the exit polls that are accurate within 3 percent (most of the time)... nationwide they survey not more than 5000 people, pre-election polls are done with only a few hundred and are decently accurate.

If I had more initiative I'd haul out my stats book from last semester to look up the exact formula but I remember that a poll with only two outcomes could be accurate to within 5% with a sample as small as 30 people is properly chosen (I may be mistaken on that... like I said, I have to look up the formula again).

[Flyndaran]

...
If I had more initiative I'd haul out my stats book from last semester to look up the exact formula but I remember that a poll with only two outcomes could be accurate to within 5% with a sample as small as 30 people is properly chosen (I may be mistaken on that... like I said, I have to look up the formula again).

For most major but simple statistics, I remember 30 as being an adequate sample for something on the order of a 90% or 95 % confidence interval. But ONLY when chosen completely randomly with no self selection going on.

The problem with election polls is that you can't make people answere, right there creating a self selecting skewed result. For example, the elderly, often at home and more likely to answer stranger's questions would be overrepresented, while uptight youths busy with their own life would be underrepresented.

Besides, a 95% confidence interval does not mean accurate to within 5%. It means that the correct answer, whatever that may be, is 95% likely to be within the range you came to. The plus minus given for the public is usually two standard deviations, and not an abosolute in any form. The real answer could be three st. deviations away... horribly unlikely but possible.
Even with a random group of people, they could technically all be left handed.

[Jadedcarguy]

.............doesn't mention if the religion Americans are talking about is Christianity or not or just religion in general............

In America, Christianity is religion. Most religious Americans choose it as their religion, or some derivative of it.

[Jadedcarguy]

Even with a random group of people, they could technically all be left handed.

True dat. It also depends on where this poll was taken. Rural Georgia? Downtown Seattle? The results will differ dramatically.

[Flyndaran]

True dat. It also depends on where this poll was taken. Rural Georgia? Downtown Seattle? The results will differ dramatically.

Mccury Family Reunion would not give good results on any study. So many obnoxious superstitious asses... and my tiny section that would not be enough to skew the results to normalcy. :)

[IDrinkaRum]

In America, Christianity is religion. Most religious Americans choose it as their religion, or some derivative of it.

I keep forgetting that. I know so many non-Christians, that Christianity being the #1 religion in America, I keep forgetting about it. :o

FTR? I'm a Christian. Roman Catholic to be exact. :D

[Flyndaran]

I keep forgetting that. I know so many non-Christians, that Christianity being the #1 religion in America, I keep forgetting about it. :o

FTR? I'm a Christian. Roman Catholic to be exact. :D

One of my sister in laws is an american catholic. I like to think of her catholic, only not. She graduated college but athesit me knows SO much more about the religion. That's irritating.
She didn't know what I meant when I made an offhand comment about the one unforgiveable sin, when the Pope is officially infalible, etc.

You must get a lot of hassle about your long term corrupt leadership. Of course, you personally can be a wonderful caring person, and I don't expect all you guys to rail against the leaders every time you mention your religion to a stranger.

[PepperElf]

I have to say... Yes I think Hollywood is out of touch. It doesn't mean it won't sell but... to me there's an undercurrent of "It's ok to bash religions we dislike".


some of the prime examples I can think of...

1) Victor Salva.
Pleaded guilty to 5 felony counts of child sex abuse in 1988. Didn't seem to kill his popularity with hollywood though.

2) Mel Gibson.
He had ONE public screwup and now... hell he's still the butt of jokes. I honestly think... if he hadn't filmed "The Passion of the Christ" hollywood would have just chalked it up as "woops" and moved on, like they do with all the other actors who have drunk incidents. But... yes religions and morals, and stressing them... I think it goes against a lot of what hollywood is trying to sell, which is why they attack more.

Hell look how many times Lidsey Lohan had to get drunk and screw up before they started making fun of her in public. Or Paris.

3) Bradjelina
Proof that if you have a history of violence to the papperazi, have a crazy sexual history, and break a marriage to be together... well it's OK. As long as you look sexy while doing it and donate a lot to charity.


Come to think of it... When I went to rent from blockbuster last, I saw an odd film there that... just looked interesting. I'd never heard of it hitting the screen. "The Last Sin-Eater". All about some pocket culture where they designate one person to "eat the sins" of someone who's dying. I don't know if I'd have rented it or not, except that the Sin-Eater was played by Peter Wingfield (Methos!!!!)

And after watching it, I realized why I never heard of it before. It turned out to be a very Christian movie about religion and faith, produced by Michael Landon Jr. ... personally I loved it and would consider buying my own copy. (tissues recommended)

But I know why hollywood wouldn't. Movies about morals don't sell as well as movies about the darkness of humanity. Or so Hollywood thinks... And when something with morals is popular without hollywood approval... o boy. look out for the fight, cos you know some kind of attack is coming somehow.

[Flyndaran]

A group of businesses which only have one thing in common, entertainment, has lost touch with morality?
I say that it never had anything to do with religion and morality. It's not the business of business to mediate, declare, or have anything to do with, morality.

The idea that Hollywood has anything more to do with morality than GM, Microsoft, or any other non-entertainment business makes no sense to me.

[AdminAssistant]

Exactly, Hollywood has one goal. Money. And I've said it before, but art, all art, reflects the society from which it comes, not vice versa. Violence, corruption, greed - all of these are present in America, and quite frankly, makes for more interesting storytelling. I also really hate any kind of art form that is prescriptive or preachy. That's not what art is supposed to be, it's supposed to be reflective.

PepperElf - Christian-themed entertainment is just a very separate niche market. Some things have mainstreamed, mostly children's programming like VeggieTales. But something as evangelical as, say, the Left Behind series is not going to sell well outside of the Christian market, so why would they waste money marketing beyond that market?

[Flyndaran]

Not quite. Art reflects society yes, but censorship, voluntary or not, can and does skew the collection.
Just look at the idylic world of 50's tv sans blacks, teen pregnancy, etc.

[PepperElf]

it's not so much that "hollywood isn't promoting those movies because they won't sell outisde the niche"... it's more that i feel...

if you're part of that niche hollywood spends more time bashing you


and that... yes hollywood is there for entertainment
which, in hollywoodese means "push our own political views"

that's what i'm tired of most... people in la la land trying to tell the rest of us how to live, when a lot of them haven't been in reality for ... quite some time.

[Slytovhand]

Which is no different to any other media outlet... money talks.

[AdminAssistant]

Flyn - Television in the 1950's is a reflection of that society, because of the conspicuous absence of minorities, etc. One thing I like to look at with theatre is how the kinds of theatre being produced can inform us on that society - and what's not there can say just as much, if not more, about society than what is.

PepperElf - The vast, and I mean vast, majority of artists as a whole (at least in the US) are liberal Democrats. Because the Democratic party actually supports the National Endowment for the Arts whereas the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate it. Many are also iffy on the issue of religion because religion has a long history of censorship.

I see what you may feel is an attack on those with more conservative morals/beliefs as an attack on the hypocrisy of some who hold those beliefs.

Is there a specific example you can think of? Might help the discussion.

[Flyndaran]

Flyn - Television in the 1950's is a reflection of that society, because of the conspicuous absence of minorities, etc. One thing I like to look at with theatre is how the kinds of theatre being produced can inform us on that society - and what's not there can say just as much, if not more, about society than what is.

....

Only if you know the REALITY of such a society such as how there has always been a third non-white of the popluation, the real teen pregnancy rates, the real divorce rates, etc. If you don't know all that, then you really might believe that 1950's TV represented an existing white-utopia rather than the gross propaganda that it was.

[AdminAssistant]

It's a tool for historians, and I seriously doubt any historian worth his/her salt wouldn't know the reality of the situation. But it still informs us on the culture of the 50's, which was very utopian-esque.

I guess TV really isn't the best example....My research interest is 19th/early 20th century French theatre. And theatre, of course, is far superior to television in many ways. :D

[guywithashovel]

For some reason, right-wingers like to complain about everything having a "liberal bias." I guess it just makes them feel more important.

As for their gripes about movies, the industry simply puts out what sells best. Remember all that "free market" stuff you all like to tout so much? Oh, that's right. Most of the right-wingers who complain about movies and books and try to get them banned are social conservatives, which is essentially a synonym for totalitarianism. When the rest of us watch movies, we want to be entertained instead of being superficial. If you don't like what's out there, then simply stay at home and rent "Fireproof."

[smileyeagle1021]

As for their gripes about movies, the industry simply puts out what sells best. Remember all that "free market" stuff you all like to tout so much?

put more eloquently... they like the free market when it agrees with them... they like facism when it agrees with them, they like totalitarianism when it agrees with them... put simply, they only like things/people that agree with them.

[Flyndaran]

put more eloquently... they like the free market when it agrees with them... they like facism when it agrees with them, they like totalitarianism when it agrees with them... put simply, they only like things/people that agree with them.

Don't we all?
I agree with freedom except when I don't. I agree with capitalism except when I don't.