I also didn't mention ultra-cons, or any other variation of Christians. I was merely bemused at the "wholesome fluff" descriptor, so imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view.
I thought I was pretty clear by quoting back, who that was in response to. I'm sorry you thought it was you. You're right you didn't, so I can't help but wonder why would you think you were being lectured for something you didn't do?
My earlier response to your post wasn't in direct response to anything you said, either. It was in response to the other people who read your post and assumed it was the Christian reviewers, rather than the NYT writer, who called the film "wholesome fluff."
Are those ultraconservative publications? Cool.
To revisit this, at least two of the reviews of Serenity I linked, are by Christian sites/reviewers named in the NYT piece. Probably more, but I only skimmed. The entire text of the Times piece can be found here: [link]
The article itself was largely about Brokeback Mountain.
Which Christianity Today gave three stars.
I thought I was pretty clear by quoting back, who that was in response to. I'm sorry you thought it was you. You're right you didn't, so I can't help but wonder why would you think you were being lectured for something you didn't do?
It reads like a lecture to the board at large.
The easter egg on the DVD is the most awesomest thing evah.
But then that might be because I'm somewhat obsessed with
Fruity Oaty Bars
(Spoiler-fonting what the easter egg is about just in case.)
The DVD easter egg gets the
jingle
running through my head for DAYS.
Not that this is, y'know, a completely bad thing.
Serenity was voted film of the year on Film 2005, the BBC's flagship film show. Yay!
It reads like a lecture to the board at large.
How so, when it begins with this quoted back:
I'm thinking Inara's profession wasn't featured enough in the movie to ping the ultracon's paranoia about sex.
And ends with me saying:
There's not a it's-a-wholesome-fluffy-bunny-of-a-movie in the bunch. I've read more Christian bloggers who are Firefly/Serenity fanatics (and thank you very much, but are not too stupid to understand that Inara is a prostitute), as well as big Buffy and Angel fans.
Some Christians can read. Some can even chew gum and walk at the same time. Really. Open up your world view a little.
I'm asking this sincerely. How so? I keep re-reading it, and between the opening quote-back and the statement in parens, it reads to me as a pretty focused response.
Granted, in between, all there was was quotes of reviewers, to back up my earlier assertion (in a prior post) that the "fluff" comment was the NYT writer editorializing about Serenity, rather than quoting any reviewer. Was that what caused the confusion?
I'm thinking Inara's profession wasn't featured enough in the movie to ping the ultracon's paranoia about sex.
It was a throwaway line, not a serious political condemnation.
It was a throwaway line
That doesn't remove the potential for offensiveness, though.
I think Cindy's been reacting to a couple of different occasions of conflation of "conservative Christians" with "wingnuts" and that may be why the correction read more like a lecture than a simple response.
oy. I lost my response. Take two.
I'm asking this sincerely. How so?
Since Daniel wasn't the only one who seemed to attribute the "wholesome fluff" comment to some Christian and/or conservative label your response seemed to be addressed more broadly despite the quote at the start of your post.
And ita's assessment is not wrong. It was the lecture quality (in the middle of a mostly silly conversation) that pinged me. I probably shouldn't have said "imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view" because I never felt that the post was pointed at me in particular. Poor phrasing on my part.
the "fluff" comment was the NYT writer
True. I really had no intention of bringing a discussion of religious views or labels into the thread. I just thought the context of the article made the "wholesome fluff" comment funnier.
The article itself is very interesting, but not relevant to this thread.
