Talk:Left Behind: The Movie

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
*
::: Thanks, but is there also literature or cultural production that debunks the pre-tribulation rapture Hoax?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.8.5.113 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: I'm sorry, but this quote is incredibly stupid. Does the success of a movie depend being shown with a projector? At a theater? With people inside? I'm taking it out, but if you wish to add it back, I'll include it here:
Andre Van Heerdon of Cloud Ten Pictures summed up Left Behind: The Movie's chances in the secular marketplace by saying, "I think the success of this film depends on a lot of people going to see it."
If this is some sort of joke to say how incompetent Christian filmmakers are, it's tasteless. Not that I doubt the guy said it, but, come on! --Surten (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I think the success of this film depends on a lot of people going to see it." 

message: I deleted this because the author's claims are complete nonsense. First, a squeaky-clean evangelical Christian movie is not going to have full frontal nudity and explicit sex scenes. Secondly, the author concludes that the movie wound up with (and was released with) an NC-17 rating, which is a complete lie - the film is rated PG-13; go check IMDB. The fact that there are no sources for this information convinces me that someone is playing a prank.
::You didn't see the film obviously. There was nudity in it- partial though, as the "left behind" people were NOT Christian. Okay, do some homework BEFORE you edit a page that influences people. Thank you!!2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:BCD6:6B4B:616B:28B1 (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted MPAA rating section 

message: Didn't Homer Simpson watch this or a similar film?
* Yes, that's noted in the "Parodies" section. -- Tom H12 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons 

message: "The folks at Cloud Ten Pictures were angered by this, and fought a long-ensuing battle that even continues today, that Bible films have no place in Hollywood."
I don't know how true this is.  But it sounds like "Could Ten Pictures" is angry claiming bible films don't belong in holloywood.  What does that have to do with anything?  It seems to me they would be angry that the R rating was unjust.  Does anyone have more information on this?
:I removed that portion due to the fact it had nothing to do with the section it was located in.  WAVY 10 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly structure sentence 

message: I made some corrections to the facts about the production and LaHaye lawsuit.  The budget listed was incorrect -- the $17.4 M figure was production and marketing.  Also, Cloud Ten didn't contract directly with the authors for the rights; Namesake Entertainment licensed the rights from the authors and Cloud Ten came into the project a couple quite a bit later.  Jenkins and LaHaye weren't credited on the film at their request.  Regarding the lawsuit, the article just cited LaHaye's allegations, which were dismissed by the judge on a pre-trial motion as lacking in fact and/or legal basis.  Tim Lahaye v. Goodneuz Group LLC, et al, 2:2000cv08306
FilmChatter (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to Production Facts and LaHaye Lawsuit 

message: Poorly structured and unfocused. Needs major editing. --Limxzero (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, it matches up perfectly with the film itself, so I'd let all the bad writing and mistakes stand.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: I was surprised that this was listed as a 2000 film. I'm sure I saw a film based on the books, and of the same name, in the 1990s, which appeared to have been made in the 70s. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier film?