![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Case for Remaking God's Not Dead
Dec. 1st, 2014 08:54 pmGod's Not Dead is a little recent for a remake. That's alright, because we'd have to change the title, anyway. Make it "The Debate" or something that takes fewer sides on the topic.
God's Not Dead, for those who don't know, has a primary plot of Josh Whedon, a freshmen student taking a Philosophy 101 course, get into a debate, before the class, with the professor, on whether or not God exists. The context is that the Professor, rather than convince the students, just asks them to say that God Is Dead so he can move on. The ironically named student cannot do so and the professor attempts to bully him through use of this debate in front of the class.
Yeah. I'll get to that.
There are several, some say too many, side-plots. There's the ex-Muslim student who converted to Christianity but kept it from her father who, when he finds out, chokes her then kicks her out of the house. The professor has an emotionally abusive romantic relationship with a former student. A preacher and friend repeatedly attempt to get on the road so they can go to Disney Land (without actually mentioning anything copyrighted). An atheist reporter is a jerk to his girlfriend when she discloses that she's just been told she has cancer. Said girlfriend confronts a cameo-ed Duck Dynasty member on the hunting and killing of animals (as opposed to the racism, the sexism, etc.) before talking with a Christian rock band who gives her a standard conversion speech.
Too many side plots seems apt, particularly since many of the side plots don't seem at all connected.
The movie ends with the preacher and friend accidentally running over the atheistic professor, but getting him to convert to Christianity mere moments before death.
Yeah.
This is very much a movie made by conservative Christians for conservative Christians with an explicit message "Everybody sucks but us... oh, and we're oppressed."
That message being known, and untrue to life, it becomes understandable why the rest of the movie is untrue to life. In fact, the primary plot is based on an Urban Legend some many decades old already, with iterations that include the student being a Navy Seal or Albert Einstein and in which the professor accidentally proves God by challenging him to keep the chalk he drops from breaking.
Before I go about making the case for the remake, I advise the movie God On Trial. It's on YouTube here http://youtu.be/5caAug5n8Zk and it's a much better discussion of debate on God. The frame is Jews in Auschwitz putting God on trial for breech of contract, but the movie passes from various debates on the topic of God, including a quick question of whether or not God even exists.
The basic framework and premise need only minor reworking. I'm actually in favor of having the multiple side-plots.
The reworking needs to be, first, that the professor of the class does not take sides in the debate. Good professors encourage debate. Professors that don't lose tenure and get fired quickly, refrain from bullying students into taking their position. So, the debate should be among the students, giving differing perspectives back and forth on the topic, representing atheists, theists, and those who only self-identify as agnostics. (There can be people who self-identify as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.)
The second part of the debate should be that it only really takes place over one class period. Encouraging a debate is one thing, but a semester only leaves so much time.
The rest of it should be told in stories that start before the class with the debate and end after. These side-plots would, in fact, be the point of the movie. They would be about the various ways people interact with their beliefs about God and how those beliefs impact. All the stories should involve students that first establish their beliefs then respond to how the challenging of beliefs impact their lives.
The stories should intercut with the debate and intertwine with each other.
The final reworking should, of course, be the name. "The God Debate" is acceptable, but it's important that neither the name nor the movie itself take sides in the debate. The debate is presented, students feel their beliefs challenged and must adjust. Some will become better people, some possibly worse. The point being that the viewers interact not just with the basic question of if God exists, but how their beliefs about God might both negatively and positively impact their own decisions and attitudes.
God's Not Dead, for those who don't know, has a primary plot of Josh Whedon, a freshmen student taking a Philosophy 101 course, get into a debate, before the class, with the professor, on whether or not God exists. The context is that the Professor, rather than convince the students, just asks them to say that God Is Dead so he can move on. The ironically named student cannot do so and the professor attempts to bully him through use of this debate in front of the class.
Yeah. I'll get to that.
There are several, some say too many, side-plots. There's the ex-Muslim student who converted to Christianity but kept it from her father who, when he finds out, chokes her then kicks her out of the house. The professor has an emotionally abusive romantic relationship with a former student. A preacher and friend repeatedly attempt to get on the road so they can go to Disney Land (without actually mentioning anything copyrighted). An atheist reporter is a jerk to his girlfriend when she discloses that she's just been told she has cancer. Said girlfriend confronts a cameo-ed Duck Dynasty member on the hunting and killing of animals (as opposed to the racism, the sexism, etc.) before talking with a Christian rock band who gives her a standard conversion speech.
Too many side plots seems apt, particularly since many of the side plots don't seem at all connected.
The movie ends with the preacher and friend accidentally running over the atheistic professor, but getting him to convert to Christianity mere moments before death.
Yeah.
This is very much a movie made by conservative Christians for conservative Christians with an explicit message "Everybody sucks but us... oh, and we're oppressed."
That message being known, and untrue to life, it becomes understandable why the rest of the movie is untrue to life. In fact, the primary plot is based on an Urban Legend some many decades old already, with iterations that include the student being a Navy Seal or Albert Einstein and in which the professor accidentally proves God by challenging him to keep the chalk he drops from breaking.
Before I go about making the case for the remake, I advise the movie God On Trial. It's on YouTube here http://youtu.be/5caAug5n8Zk and it's a much better discussion of debate on God. The frame is Jews in Auschwitz putting God on trial for breech of contract, but the movie passes from various debates on the topic of God, including a quick question of whether or not God even exists.
The basic framework and premise need only minor reworking. I'm actually in favor of having the multiple side-plots.
The reworking needs to be, first, that the professor of the class does not take sides in the debate. Good professors encourage debate. Professors that don't lose tenure and get fired quickly, refrain from bullying students into taking their position. So, the debate should be among the students, giving differing perspectives back and forth on the topic, representing atheists, theists, and those who only self-identify as agnostics. (There can be people who self-identify as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.)
The second part of the debate should be that it only really takes place over one class period. Encouraging a debate is one thing, but a semester only leaves so much time.
The rest of it should be told in stories that start before the class with the debate and end after. These side-plots would, in fact, be the point of the movie. They would be about the various ways people interact with their beliefs about God and how those beliefs impact. All the stories should involve students that first establish their beliefs then respond to how the challenging of beliefs impact their lives.
The stories should intercut with the debate and intertwine with each other.
The final reworking should, of course, be the name. "The God Debate" is acceptable, but it's important that neither the name nor the movie itself take sides in the debate. The debate is presented, students feel their beliefs challenged and must adjust. Some will become better people, some possibly worse. The point being that the viewers interact not just with the basic question of if God exists, but how their beliefs about God might both negatively and positively impact their own decisions and attitudes.
