Current Events > Soooo...a cinema chain in the UK pulled a film after protests by upset Muslims

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/20189479.cineworld-bolton-pulls-lady-heaven-film-protest/

The gist is that the film was sacrilegious so cineworld - literally the biggest chain in the uk - pulled it from showings nationwide.

What do you think CE? Seems bad man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRGvwc_DP0

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/3/AABJX0AADUHX.jpg

Is the movie Islamophobic? Didnt read the article

David1988 posted...

Is the movie Islamophobic?

No, just blasphemous somehow.

If Muslims want to abide by their religious rules, they can. But why should everyone else have to?

It's not like the film was mocking him. We tolerate plenty of Christian/Jewish blasphemy, so really why not the other Abrahamic faiths?

David1988 posted...

Is the movie Islamophobic? Didnt read the article

It contains depictions of Muhammad, which I believe is inherently offensive to muslims. Whether you think that is islamophobic is up to you.

The protests were over blasphemy, not racism.

David1988 posted...

Is the movie Islamophobic? Didnt read the article

"After losing his mother in the midst of a war-torn country, an Iraqi child learns the importance and power of patience by discovering the historical story of Lady Fatima and her suffering."

i dunno

Sounds like they need double secret Brexit. That will fix everything I'm sure.

I think it's dumb. People will always be offended, so whatever.

LinkFanatic posted...

I think it's dumb. People will always be offended, so whatever.

Offended people don't always commit acts of violence to show how offended they are, though.

Cineworld apparently didn't pull the film out of consideration for the points in the letter. They did it because they feared for their staff.

That sucks. Its complete censorship over religion.

historically inaccurate and blatantly disrespectful

Apparently the director is an adherent of Shia Islam and has some Shia supremacist views (vs Sunni Islam). Apparently the movie might also be kinda racist because it depicted some of Mohammed's homies with black actors while the good guys have lighter skin despite them historically being in the same region so not making sense).

I think the reason they pulled it was stupid but it might just be a trashy film at heart, and even Iran banned it for inciting religious division. Ultimately I wasn't going to ever see it, but interesting story don't see this too often

ElleRagu posted...

historically inaccurate and blatantly disrespectful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053AUUF4LGs

Fucking sucks

More bowing down to religion.

If you're offended don't go see the fucking movie.

I was offended by the idioicy of 2,000 mules. So I didn't go and watch it. You can if you like

pinky0926 posted...

It contains depictions of Muhammad, which I believe is inherently offensive to muslims.

Movie should never have been greenlit for theatres then. Protests are fair.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Movie should never have been greenlit for theatres then. Protests are fair.

Disagree

Obviously theatres can show what they want or don't want but once you start giving into religion you're never going to stop.

Everything is offensive to someone.

ElleRagu posted...

historically inaccurate and blatantly disrespectful

Its still only a movie!

What if their offense offends me?

AdrianBeterson posted...

Movie should never have been greenlit for theatres then. Protests are fair.

No government should cater or bown down to ONE religion. Nobodys making them GO into the theaters.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Disagree

Obviously theatres can show what they want or don't want but once you start giving into religion you're never going to stop.

Everything is offensive to someone.

It is widely known that depictions of the prophet is highly offensive for Muslims worldwide. Knowing this information and still publishing it is mocking them and enticing them.

I dont blame them for pulling it. Things could get a little hairy if they didnt.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Its still only a movie!

it's a massive insult

shouldn't been allowed to play in theatres

AdrianBeterson posted...

It is widely known that depictions of the prophet is highly offensive for Muslims worldwide. Knowing this information and still publishing it is mocking them and enticing them.

exactly

ElleRagu posted...

it's a massive insult

shouldn't been allowed to play in theatres

Lots of people considered the passion of the christ as an insult.

Are pictures of Muhammad banned on CE? Ive never seen one posted.

AdrianBeterson posted...

It is widely known that depictions of the prophet is highly offensive for Muslims worldwide. Knowing this information and still publishing it is mocking them and enticing them.

Art bowing to dogma is always a loss for culture

And since you brought it up I have no problem mocking religion and don't think it should be banned or shunned, although that's not the point here

pinky0926 posted...

Art bowing to dogma is always a loss for culture

Enticing and angering an entire culture, community and population over the guise of "art" is also a loss for culture.

ElleRagu posted...

it's a massive insult

shouldn't been allowed to play in theatres

So we should ban anything that will ever offend religious people? Fuck that noise

AdrianBeterson posted...

Enticing and angering an entire culture, community and population over the guise of "art" is also a loss for culture.

I guess we need to ban LGBT+ people from being shown as well. We don't want to anger all the Christians who despise them and consider them incredibly offensive.

AdrianBeterson posted...

It is widely known that depictions of the prophet is highly offensive for Muslims worldwide. Knowing this information and still publishing it is mocking them and enticing them.

1. No it's not. It's ridiclous to say a work of art is mocking and enticing people because people choose to be offended by it. Stop coddling grown adults like they were wild animals.
2. So what? Again everyone is offended by something. Millions of people are offended when two dudes kiss, you want to ban gay people in movies?

Hell one of the points of media and cinema is to reflect and challenge society.

You think no religious nut got mad at Life of Brian

Fuck religious nuts got mad over Harry Potter.

Fuck 'em. Just don't go to the movie if it bothers you. Don't stop other people.

Seaman_Prime posted...

So we should ban anything that will ever offend religious people? Fuck that noise

No, but you should absolutely not depict the prophet when it is well-known to be the most offensive thing you can do to the Muslim community.

UnfairRepresent posted...

1. No it's not. It's ridiclous to say a work of art is mocking and enticing people because people choose to be offended by it. Stop coddling grown adults like they were wild animals.
2. So what? Again everyone is offended by something. Millions of people are offended when two dudes kiss, you want to ban gay people in movies?

Hell one of the points of media and cinema is to reflect and challenge society.

You think no religious nut got mad at Life of Brian

Fuck religious nuts got mad over Harry Potter.

Fuck 'em. Just don't go to the movie if it bothers you. Don't stop other people.

You clearly do not understand the culture and religion of Islam and how gravely offensive the depiction of the prophet is.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Enticing and angering an entire culture, community and population over the guise of "art" is also a loss for culture.

Would it still be wrong if the art was good and had an important point to make, or is it simply inadmissable because the movie was probably trash?

Like what is the point you're making. Depictions of the prophet must never be made no matter what? There are certain topics art is not allowed to cover?

AdrianBeterson posted...

You clearly do not understand the culture and religion of Islam and how gravely offensive the depiction of the prophet is.

Please explain

AdrianBeterson posted...

You clearly do not understand the culture and religion of Islam and how gravely offensive the depiction of the prophet is.

No one is making them see it. Nor is it intentionally being offensive and derogatory, even if from what is said about by critics it's not exactly the best regardless.

Also, you support a ban on showing LGBT+ people due to Christian views on them? I don't see any difference when they consider it a great sin as well.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Enticing and angering an entire culture, community and population over the guise of "art" is also a loss for culture.

1. No it's not
2. A movie isn't doing that.

You're acting like the movie is Sal and not just a movie with a plot you're choosing to be offended by

pinky0926 posted...

Would it still be wrong if the art was good and had an important point to make, or is it simply inadmissable because the movie was probably trash?

Like what is the point you're making. Depictions of the prophet must never be made no matter what? There are certain topics art is not allowed to cover?

The depiction of Prophet Muhammad is one of, if not the most offensive thing in all of Islam. Period.

AdrianBeterson posted...

No, but you should absolutely not depict the prophet when it is well-known to be the most offensive thing you can do to the Muslim community.

Why does it get a pass because people are offended? That's not a good reason to make something illegal. Your point offends me, but I'd still say you're free to make it.

AdrianBeterson posted...

The depiction of Prophet Muhammad is one of, if not the most offensive thing in all of Islam. Period.

Cool. It should never be banned in a society I want to live in.

AdrianBeterson posted...

You clearly do not understand the culture and religion of Islam and how gravely offensive the depiction of the prophet is.

Or I do and don't care.

If it offends you that much, don't go to see it.

You can be gravely offended by a photo of eggs and toast but don't demand other people can't look at it. That's anti-freedom.

Just like how society shouldn't bend to the will of christians and tell them to fuck off when they get out of line, muslims can fuck off when trying to dictate their morality onto the rest of us.

Funkydog posted...

No one is making them see it. Nor is it intentionally being offensive and derogatory, even if from what is said about by critics it's not exactly the best regardless.

It is intentionally being offensive and derogatory when it is well-known that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Muslims.

AdrianBeterson posted...

The depiction of Prophet Muhammad is one of, if not the most offensive thing in all of Islam. Period.

So? That doesnt mean the whole world should bend over backwards for them.

US cant complain considering we pulled The Interview

pinky0926 posted...

Why does it get a pass because people are offended? That's not a good reason to make something illegal. Your point offends me, but I'd still say you're free to make it.

Fell free to protest then. That is your right.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Or I do and don't care.

That's all I needed to hear. Have a good one.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Lots of people considered the passion of the christ as an insult.

and it also should've been pulled lol

depicting holy prophets in such a vulgar way is wrong and disrespectful to those religions and their people

AdrianBeterson posted...

It is intentionally being offensive and derogatory when it is well-known that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Muslims.

So you agree we need to ban depictions of LGBT+ people then? Christians consider it a sin and a grave offense to show/"promote" it. Using your same thinking we need to cower before Christian dogma and bigotry as well.

And that's shitty thinking.