Talk:Religulous/Archive 1

Archive 1

Christianity

I would assume that Christians are interviewed in this documentary too. Can we get that inserted in here and cited? 155.138.250.6 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is cited already by the source. Feel free to be bold next time! --Rajah (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, judeo-christian mythology is covered in the film. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Slate Review

An anon tried removing this because he felt it didn't represent the critical basis of the film and that it was inaccurate because Maher's not an atheist. There's ten positive reviews and two negative reviews listed. I think, at the very least, that should be an acceptable ratio. (Actually, considering the current 65% percent on RT, 10-2 probably isn't that accurate, but I'm not going to try to change it)

At the same time, I found a cited article stating with Maher stating that he's not an atheist, just not a believer in religion and cited that article with the statement about the film being atheistic, so hopefully no one will read the Slant review now and (perish the thought!) think that Maher's an atheist.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(although Maher has stated that he's not an atheist, and that "There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion") - removed this bit, as "atheistic" is referring to the film, not to Maher. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section

As it stands, it seems that the passage on the film's reviews - which cites numerous reviews at length - is rather too long. I think it should be trimmed down.--Seed-kun (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think instead we should focus on expanding the other sections - Contents, with an expanded summary of the documentary; Production, with more info on any casting info, how the production team got together and background on that, editing info, music, etc.; and then subsequently expand the lede accordingly. This is actually an adequate size for a Reception section of the article in comparison to other Featured Articles on film topics. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Speakers' Corner

[1] - Do we have a source for this? Cirt (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[2]--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bleeps

What's up with all of the bleeps in the trailer? It made it almost unwatchable. 76.123.165.106 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

lol, that's not the trailer, you clicked on the "kosher" joke version of the trailer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.204.120 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The bleeps are only in the "Kosher" version of the trailer. It's not even stuff worth bleeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrodedKeri (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Where was Rael?

The text of the article and some of the pre-release blurbs mention "Rael of the Raelean Movement", but I didn't see him in the movie, unless it was in one of the brief cut scenes, which wouldn't be worth mentioning individually.Prebys (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see him either, although I did doze off a few times, so I could have missed him. Krakatoa (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Caveats on reviewers

Film critic Roger Ebert, a Roman Catholic... - I do not think this is an appropriate change, this bit of info is irrelevant here, and "Roman Catholic" should be removed. Are we to state the faith of all of the reviewers and film critics now? Cirt (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not "to state the faith of all of the reviewers and film critics now", but Ebert's faith is relevant given that a) he is quite religious and has based whole columns on that and b) he references this by saying he reports "faithfully" and c) he gives a positive review even though the movie mocks his religion and others' Keepscases (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Keepscases (talk · contribs) - I disagree, as does CyberGhostface (talk · contribs) and Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs). This is highly inappropriate and I have never seen this sort of prefacing done before in any other Reception section of any article of this type. It is POV and borderline WP:OR, and tangential and irrelevant. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Keepscases (talk · contribs) has now added this info back into the article a third time. I think this is inappropriate behavior, especially when taking into account the consensus above not to include this in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, consensus is that this should not be in the article. I have reverted and warned.--Terrillja (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not "highly inappropriate." Replacing the article with a giant picture of a penis would be "highly inappropriate." Mentioning a reviewers' faith that happens to be very much relevant to the subject matter is not inappropriate. Keepscases (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that information is relevant, but belongs on the page about the person. Surprise; there is a part about his faith. "Ebert has been known to comment on films using his own Roman Catholic upbringing (...) However, Ebert identifies himself today as an agnostic." Excusez-moi if I did not quote it well as I'm no regular user, but I would say check your sources before you go fighting (irrelevant) battles.130.236.5.145 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maher scores his best points...

I have added the following: "Maher scores his best points when he is interviewing certified weirdos and borderline lunatics, like a South American fellow named Jesus who claims, perhaps partly on the basis of the shared name, that he is the second coming of Jesus Christ," says Dinesh D'Souza. Obviously, he charges, "Maher is in search of weak opponents that he can embarrass." D'Souza has challenged him to hold a debate: "I would love to debate him on his show, and can easily show that Maher’s self-image as an intellectual is largely bogus. It is only in the company of obvious charlatans and simpletons that Maher comes off as the bright guy." (Why Bill Maher Made Me Laugh by Dinesh D'Souza) Asteriks (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be rephrased. It does not sound very NPOV for me, rather like a press release... SoWhy 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this material is POV, not just that, it is way too much quoted text, should be trimmed down significantly, and paraphrased. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened it and reworded it to make it clear it's D'Souza's opinion rather than a statement of the article. Although, since D'Souza isn't really a film critic, it's not clear his opinions belong here at all.Prebys (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prebys (talk · contribs), not really approp, should be removed. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mockumentary not Documentary

PBS, HBO, Discovery, History, BBC, et al. make documentaries. BM is not serious nor his he neutral. He's hateful and an egomaniac. He makes no attempt at a balanced point of view. Some people may be inclined to take him seriously, and they need to be reminded that BM is a comedian, talking head, and again, egomaniac. Watch this film if you want, but take it with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.76 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one to defend someone who told the aunt of a mentally retarded child that she should treat her nephew like an animal, but at the same time, it is a documentary. Lots of documentaries, from Michael Moore to Ben Stein, all have biases one way or another.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been said that all good documentaries have a point of view. A mockumentary is a completely different animal, usually a complete work of fiction with scripted performances like the Christopher Guest films. "Borat" was kind of a blend with a fictionalized character dealing with real people. "Religulous" is neither of those. Bill is being Bill...it's not an act...and he's interviewing real people. If he ends up making some look silly that doesn't make it not a documentary. I've seen it and I don't think Bill goads anyone into looking silly. I'm sure you've seen the part shown in the trailer where the Senator remarks that there's no IQ test for the Senate! Filmteknik (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want someone to mention that Maher is a hateful, egomaniac on an objective encyclopedia? Go grind your axe somewhere else. F33bs (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia? Objective? Heh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We try. So should you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.2.86 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...who says I haven't? Didn't I disagree with the initial poster about this being a 'mockumentary'? Even if I personally don't like Maher, I'm not going to be using his article(s) as a personal agenda for that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The content of the documentary has to be made up for it to be a mockumentary. However if you read the article it says he lied about who he was to get some of his interviews, so this documentary might fall under the category of being made up. Ninja337 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He was dishonest in obtaining the interviews, that much is definitely true. However, the interviews themselves are 'factual' in that he's not playing a fictional character ala Borat and he's interviewing real people. On another note, while it doesn't excuse Maher, lots of documentary filmmakers have lied to obtain interviews with people who normally wouldn't give interviews in the first place.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Maher has said multiple times that the movie is meant to be first and foremost: a comedy. Not a documentary. F33bs (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A mockumentary is a fictional documentary, like Best In Show or Borat. Whilst you may feel that this movie is not 100% seriosus etc etc, but it is still technically a documentary.Sadistic monkey (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not call "Borat" a mockumentary, I would call it a "semi-documentary" whose closest parallel is "Candid Camera" as the ordinary people interacting with the Borat character were caught in the act of being themselves under outrageous circumstances. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

````Bill isnt trying to make anyone look idiotic. I dont think he's being byast, he's simply tying to contrast everything he's being told. Thats what a documentry is-when every bit of information, or belif in this case, is questioned again and again to get the best possible idea of whats going on. He's a commedian, so can you really blame him for making a few people look a little silly. I think it's a great movie. Also, if t were a mock., don't you think they would have included more byast?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrodedKeri (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see this movie, but since not living in the United Mistakes, I can't! This is also what disgustes me, the money making! If BM's intention was to reach as many people as possible and "wake" them up a bit, he himself should provide a download of the whole movie. I'm sure he's a very good income and doesn't really need those additional millions! (maybe at least, he'll use that money for a good purpose, I hope!) By the way, there's a new Zeitgeist movie out now, an Addendum. Everyone should see that! AND, Zeitgeist as well as the Addendum is 100% FREE! The makers even encourage people to spread it and hand out copies to as many people as possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.111.41 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• derp. Ninja337 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know how the fuck you try to say "biased" and end up spelling it "byast"!!!!! --Jaysweet (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with "An American Carol"

"American Carol" director David Zucker himself calls his film the opposite of this film at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html so comparisons with that film do belong in this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison "might" belong in the article somewhere, but comparing revenue is still OR, unless you have another rabbit in your hat somewhere? I will revert your newest attempt to push your own observations and opinions. 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CENSEI (talk • contribs)

Variety has an article directly comparing the two films at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993541.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison from a Catholic viewpoint: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16170/ Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the other talk page, only one of those compares the revenue figures and that's as an aside. You really need a better source if you want to add such comparisons else it's OR. If you want to mention that it opened aside Religilious that's fine, but don't mention viewership/revenue figures without a good source making this comparison Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The weekly box office links are not sufficient enough? Steelbeard1 (talk)

The weekly box office links only establish how each films did. They don't establish that we should be comparing the two. The Dallas News article establish that people compares the two films but it doesn't establish that we should compare their viewship figures. As it stands, in this article since the section is comparing more then just An American Carol I've decided to let it stand but it still appears POV pushy and OR to me. The second section comparing the two in the second week has absolutely no source comparing the two and it only compares the two so it's clear cut OR IMHO. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that people have compared the two but if you want to compare viewship figures, you need sources which compare the viewership figures. Otherwise it's OR to compare the viewership figures. If you want to compare the film to every other film on the boxoffice for that week, then that's probably not OR but it would be too long. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The news stories mentioned above among others you can easily Google makes comparing how the two films did in the box office extremely relevant. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this rated?

I have been tring to find out what this is rated for forever. You Know like R and G and PG and stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Invisible Person (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rated R.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it rated R? There is no violence, no sex, nothing gruesome or potentially traumatising in it. I mean Dark Knight for instance - which after all contains several horribly disfigured freaks and some vigorous cruelties - was rated PG-13. --87.160.228.230 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps language? Cirt (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was brief nudity if I remember correctly. Anyways, from Yahoo movies: MPAA Rating: R for some language and sexual material.--Terrillja (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There was only one "horribly disfigured freak" in The Dark Knight...two, if you count the Joker's face. But in all seriousness, The Dark Knight will probably be the MPAA poster child for directors wanting to get the R ratings lowered to a PG-13. As for Religulous...as someone else stated, there's language and nudity. And yes, I've heard the argument that little Johnny will probably be more traumitized by someone getting half their face burned off than a stray nipple, but them's the breaks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you say "Fuck" more than X number of times (and X is a pretty low number, three or five or something) that's an automatic R as far as the MPAA is concerned. Cuz you know, saying "Fuck" is way more dangerous than killing people. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not exactly true. In Gunner Palace, "Fuck" is said 42 times and is rated PG-13. In Guilty by Suspicion, it is said at least 10 times, also PG-13. There are others. The MPAA always has been wildly inconsistent and arbitrary when it comes to ratings. MrBlondNYC (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I'm a little surprised to hear that. So far I have never come across a movie that has it more than three times that is not rated R. For instance, I always figured that's why the R-rating for Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, cuz I can't figure any other reason. But yeah, as you say, MPAA has been consistently inconsistent :D So I suppose add the adverb "generally" to every sentence in my previous comment. ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

Section reads strangely. Was it pushed back to July and then pushed back further to October? Then it should say so. It reads now as if there were two releases. Jd2718 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Diametrically opposed to An American Carol?

I have now twice deleted the info comparing this film to An American Carol. The article was claiming that Religulous was somehow "diametrically opposed" to An American Carol because it claims Carol is conservative. This I guess implies that making fun of religion is always liberal, which of course it isn't. There are "conservative" atheists and "liberal" theists, and Michael Moore is actually a Catholic so Carol is actually mocking a Catholic, although not because of his religion.

The comparison was reinserted because the editor said it compared this film with other films out at the same time. Fine, but it's already compared to the #1 film, so why would you compare it to the #1 film and then another random other film without any other film? The article claimed they are diametrically opposed films, but I think I've shown that is patently false, because mocking religion doesn't equal liberal, and mocking Michael Moore and mocking religion only have one thing in common, mocking something. So should we then compare it to all films making fun of things out that week? Compare it to the top film or all top ten films out that week, but not to some other film that isn't really related to this film at all. 129.82.251.96 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The films An American Carol and Religious were both released to theaters around the same time and both films were compared in several news stories at that time. So the comparison is relevant if several news sources did the same thing such as the existing citation at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the passage in question to that similar to the wording in the An American Carol article which developed in consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The wording is better, but I tend to agree with 129.82.251.96 that this is at best superfluous and at worst tacitly assumes the "religion=patriotism" thing that Religulous tries to fight. I notice you've changed the "American Carol"'s "sometimes compared" to "often compared" and make reference to "several news stories", but there is only one article cited in either article. If this is really the only case of the two compared in print, then it hardly seems noteworthy. The inclusion is loaded with preconceptions about what "liberals" and "conservatives" enjoy. Personally, I loved "Religulous" (as did my conservative Republican neighbor), but find Michael Moore annoying as hell, so I probably would have liked "American Carol" except that the reviews make it clear it's simply not funny (however, even most of the negative reviews say it *could* have been). I feel it has no place in the article, but for now will simply change "often compared" to "has been compared" pending more citations.Prebys (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there are four journalistic citations to back up the edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I still personally think the comparison is misplaced; that is comparing a good anti-religion movie to a bad anti-Michael Moore movie. "Team America" proved that it can be extremely funny (and profitable) to make fun of "Hollywood liberals" in general, and Michael Moore in particular; however, clearly a significant media element disagrees with me, so it's inclusion with the current wording is certainly appropriate.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)