What's the big contract almost this movie?
I keep coming across article after news story about how this movie, ORPHAN, is going to "turn off" potential adopters.
Most of the groups whining, however, are not the parents of adopt children who were once foster kids (which is what the movie is about)they are international adopters or APs of domestic infants.
It's like these people own a fantasy that most people have a *wonderful* summary of adoptees (and adoption) and that this movie will somehow sully that pristine notion.
I think it shows how naive these APs are. Growing up as an adopted child I hear lots of things about adoption--hardly any of it was positive.
Aren't these parents infringing on this movie studio's 5th Amendment rights? I mean the philosophy here are hardly novel, i.e. The Bad Seed, The Omen, etc.
What do you think?
http://cbs4.com/entertainment/orphan.mov…
I'm baffled. When The Omen came out, did we hear a bunch of foofooraw from a'parents? Not that I remember. And that adoptee be literally the son of Satan!
The idea that a PAP, who is ready to go through home studies, salary a bunch of fees, deal with uncertainty, I don`t know even travel to adopt is going to change their mind about the whole article because of a movie seems like quite the insult to adoptive parents by me.
It doesn't bother me one bit or make me even slightly insecure as an adoptive parent.
However, as a foster and foster/adoptive parent I don't find a motion picture that demonises a foster child entertaining. Not to mention that as you said, it's been done before. Source(s): Foster/adoptive mum.
It's a horror movie. Most people wouldn't go to see it anyway because the horror genre isn't all that popular near women. As you say, it's probably no different from The Omen or similar movies.
Oh come on now. We all KNOW that adoptees are bitter, ungrateful killing machines of late waiting for the perfect time to jump out and yell BOO!
I muse the hype around this movie is about as valid as saying you aren`t sending your kid to sleepaway camp because Jason and his hockey shroud could butcher your teen.
I think it is a imagination movie, and that people need to grow up. If this movie was adequate to change the mind of a prospective adoptive parent, then I think they shouldn't hold tried to adopt in the first place. If someone is naive enough to believe what is within the movie, they have no business parenting. If they are trying to protect their children from the content of the movie, they shouldn't let them see it.
I think that here are so many movies out there that have empire up in arms, but if it is really THAT bad, they should just not see it. I don't deduce that any Intelligent person would suddenly have bad mood about adoption or adopted people from this silly movie. The population who would be influenced in that way are ridiculous and not worth a person's time. Source(s): adoptee, mother of 5
Perhaps off topic, but this reminds me around when the Da Vinci Code came out and some people thought it portrayed albinos in a unpromising way.
Whhhaattt? Because one of the characters is, yes, albino and, yes, led astray, are they insinuating the rest of us are so stupid as to tie that trait to EVERY albino we run across?
You just gotta shake your guide sometimes...
If someone is going to base their ideal of what its like to elevate a child through adoption soley off a movie and then not do it because someone wrote a story that's not all touchy feely...or a moment ago plain fiction...then they should do the kids a favour and not adopt or foster. Reality check. :)
I think anyone that is turned bad to adoption by a hollywood horror movie is probably too immature to raise a child anyway
Pffffftttt. I imagine it's ridiculous that adoptive parents are the main force behind protesting the movie.
"It must be hard to love a child that isn't your own?" Really?? Ummm, check any adoption book written, and it will more than probable have that exact statement inside. Who says that? Duh...adoptees.
That is a statement/question "MOST" adoptees think going on for many times during their childhoods, especially if their ap's have bio kids. Is it painful? Yes. But it is truthful. Im sure at some point non-adopted children vote ask themselves if it could be hard for their parents love a sibling more than them.but for adoptees, it's almost a given that they have thought that or even asked that.
The statement doesn't mean it's true, but it is something to be precise thought about by most adoptees.
Of course, this is a horror flick. It will be over the top. All movies exaggerate to some degree. I think these ap's protesting the flick should :
a. Not run to the movie
b. Find out why this statement bothers them so much. Perhaps it may be hitting a little too close to home?? Source(s): coming soon to a theater near you.
I own only seen trailers for the movie - is it even out yet? I construe some IAP dislike it because too often people expect our children to have these sensitive of problems just because they were adopted from an orphanage or at an elder age.
Also, is the child suppose to be adopted from foster care? From what I saw in the trailer she be adopted from an orphanage. I believe the word orphanage is even used when they discuss the fact that the "orphanage has no diary of her ever being there". If she was in an orphanage the tinge would be that she was not in foster care. There are group homes still for some elder children and children with severe problems but it they are not referred to as orphanages.
Finally, there have be studies done (the most notable by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption) which have shown that a majority of American's feel that children contained by foster care are there because of something the child has done. American's within general have a very gloomy view of foster kids. Organizations and public service campaigns have be working hard to change this view so that more of these kids can switch on to find homes. I think the protests have less to do next to the fear that the movie will change the current positive view of elder kids in foster care; but instead the protests are related to the concern that the movie will reinforce the already extremely negative view that the general population holds of the elder children waiting in foster care.
APs are niave in what approach? That as a group we want to protect our children from ignorant statements like "It must be hard to love a child that isn't your own?" This statement be on the trailer which runs on national television when any age child might be watching it. Or niave in that those of us who feel strongly nearly children and their right to grow up in a family are dismayed to see a popular movie out there reinforcing the refusal views that are already keeping families from adopting from foster support or older children from orphanages for that matter. When I was preparing to adopt, I can't give an account you how many people warned me not to because those foster and/or orphanage kids hold major problems.
Personelly, I'm not taking the time to protest the movie. I don't plan to see it either. I think as you said the accepted wisdom are hardly novel and have already be overdone in the past.
They major took resentment at the tagline and Esther's line "It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own". I hold no problem with it, I've seen movies with far worse taglines.
BUT, the up to date tagline is "There's something wrong with Esther."
Wow. So a bunch of weak stomached individuals got sulky by the first tagline. And, one of the reasons floating around the web is that adoptive parents are just protecting their adopt child. Since when have adoptees been as so frail that we need to be protected from the big bleak evil movie industry. And, why dont the same adoptive parents and other individuals have problems with the current tagline.
So are adoptive parents and others suggesting that its wrong to sticky label adoptives parents as unloving. But its okay to promote and label adoptees as selfish, unloving, evil little so and so's.
I'd love to meet up near one of these protesters at a screening. I'd just laugh in their obverse and tell them the movie is based on my life.. next screem BOO. hahahahahahahha.
I'm certainly not protesting, and I'll probably jump see it, but the thing that troubles me somewhat is how more than once in the trailer alone it's mentioned outright that Esther is "older" and "mature"-- basically imply that older/foster children are damaged and bad, and a newborn would have be fine. It's not a dig at adoption as a whole, it's a dig against adopt a child from the demographic that actually really needs homes.
That said, it's just a movie, a summer popcorn movie no smaller amount, and I'm not deeply concerned. I hope no one takes it seriously, and if they do, they wouldn't be a suitable adoptive home for an older child anyway.
The studio has every constitutional right to make this movie. Protesters also hold every constitutional right to protest it. Everyone's free speech is protected under law, not just some people's. People enjoy a right to make art, and to criticize art too. (Also, 5th Amendment is self-incrimination. 1st includes free speech.)
Interestingly, the people protesting this movie are not all doing so because of adoption. Some are doing so because the movie is supposedly antisemitic-- gloom haired, Jewish-looking child named Esther is evil devil-spawn. Still just a movie. But it's not JUST adoptive parents or people who keeping about adoption who are fussing and protesting on this one, as your question seems to indicate. Adoptive parents may be the most vocal group in this case, but they don't enjoy the market cornered on movie protests by a longshot. Source(s): As most people with a level in any political science field, I've studied constitutional law
Just replace "The Orphan" with "Juno" and you hold your answer. Both are works of fiction with precious little value in veracity and yet each hit a nerve because they are personal. Each belittling an experience palpable to another entity. If I got angry at every adoption misconception spouted in popular culture I would have to throw out my TV and DVD player.
Ain't gonna start.
My back is more likely to go up and my mama carry claws come out when someone in my real life spouts BS. Then the ire is raise.
I think you denote 1st amendment. And no, APs are not infringing on the 1st amendment rights of Hollywood by protesting a movie or deciding not to spend their money to see it. APs (like everyone else) have the right to protest. After all, here were a lot of protest surrounding the movie Juno, too. And nobody was imply that people protesting Juno's portrayal of adoption was infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.
The only problem I have with the movie was the tag column about it being hard to love an adopt child as much as a biological child. APs. I get sick of that suggestion quite a bit. It doesn't bother me enough to protest it, but I doubt I'll spend my money to see it. I resembling scary movies quite a bit, but this doesn't look like a especially good one. As you said, it's been done before: The Bad Seed, The Omen.
ETA: So how masses people here who are pooh-poohing the adoptive parents for not wanting to see this movie, got bent out of shape over Juno's portrayal of adoption?
After adjectives, THAT was just a movie too, right?
Answers: To me it seem that the furor is indicative of how insecure the pro-adoption at any cost community really is. I think that their insecurity manifests in these foolish and over the top protests against a movie. Any time adoption is portrayed in any less than a glowing wishy-washy you see them coming out. They are here, they are on Cafe Mom, they are everywhere talking over the voices of the people who enjoy experienced the loss side, discounting and dismissing the sadness and pain.
If they were really support in their position or confident of their rightness, they wouldn't be so concerned about what people would muse about a silly thing like a movie.
What they are doing near their silly protests is call attention to the movie, since we know that "there is no such thing as unpromising publicity!" and to their own insecurities. It also makes people stop and think for a moment that perchance there IS something wrong. I don't believe for a moment that people are all that comfortable beside the idea of adoption, or that it sits well with family if they give it a moment's thought at all. When forced to think in the order of it because their attention is drawn to it, as these stupid protests are doing, they know that THEY wouldn't feel right about giving one of their children away, and they know, deep down inside, that in that is something not quite right about adoption as it is practiced in the US today.
In a process, I think that the pro-natural family people should be clapping their hand with glee and goading the furor on to its illogical and lunatic conclusion. But, it is unkind to use people's insecurities against them... but, oh, hang around...isn't that how THEY got the babies in the first place...hmmmmm.
i had never even heard of this b4 now, but that queue in the trailer is pretty offensive, imagine if some 7 year ripened adopted child heard that? the one thing that kept me sane during my childhood be imagining that my a parents DID love me as much as they would have if they had biological children. i havnt see the film, but i have heard genuine life stories of seriously troubled, not their own fault, foster kids who made foster or adopted parents lives extremly difficult, sternness etc, and maybe this film undermines the reason bhind a childs behaviour? we are a consequence of our environment as well as our genes.
Related Questions:
I give a tot up for adoption to nice ethnic group contained by 2002.i requirement sustain plz?
I hear roughly speaking this website?
Since relinquishment of newborn babies are low...?
Most of the groups whining, however, are not the parents of adopt children who were once foster kids (which is what the movie is about)they are international adopters or APs of domestic infants.
It's like these people own a fantasy that most people have a *wonderful* summary of adoptees (and adoption) and that this movie will somehow sully that pristine notion.
I think it shows how naive these APs are. Growing up as an adopted child I hear lots of things about adoption--hardly any of it was positive.
Aren't these parents infringing on this movie studio's 5th Amendment rights? I mean the philosophy here are hardly novel, i.e. The Bad Seed, The Omen, etc.
What do you think?
http://cbs4.com/entertainment/orphan.mov…
I'm baffled. When The Omen came out, did we hear a bunch of foofooraw from a'parents? Not that I remember. And that adoptee be literally the son of Satan!
The idea that a PAP, who is ready to go through home studies, salary a bunch of fees, deal with uncertainty, I don`t know even travel to adopt is going to change their mind about the whole article because of a movie seems like quite the insult to adoptive parents by me.
It doesn't bother me one bit or make me even slightly insecure as an adoptive parent.
However, as a foster and foster/adoptive parent I don't find a motion picture that demonises a foster child entertaining. Not to mention that as you said, it's been done before. Source(s): Foster/adoptive mum.
It's a horror movie. Most people wouldn't go to see it anyway because the horror genre isn't all that popular near women. As you say, it's probably no different from The Omen or similar movies.
Oh come on now. We all KNOW that adoptees are bitter, ungrateful killing machines of late waiting for the perfect time to jump out and yell BOO!
I muse the hype around this movie is about as valid as saying you aren`t sending your kid to sleepaway camp because Jason and his hockey shroud could butcher your teen.
I think it is a imagination movie, and that people need to grow up. If this movie was adequate to change the mind of a prospective adoptive parent, then I think they shouldn't hold tried to adopt in the first place. If someone is naive enough to believe what is within the movie, they have no business parenting. If they are trying to protect their children from the content of the movie, they shouldn't let them see it.
I think that here are so many movies out there that have empire up in arms, but if it is really THAT bad, they should just not see it. I don't deduce that any Intelligent person would suddenly have bad mood about adoption or adopted people from this silly movie. The population who would be influenced in that way are ridiculous and not worth a person's time. Source(s): adoptee, mother of 5
Perhaps off topic, but this reminds me around when the Da Vinci Code came out and some people thought it portrayed albinos in a unpromising way.
Whhhaattt? Because one of the characters is, yes, albino and, yes, led astray, are they insinuating the rest of us are so stupid as to tie that trait to EVERY albino we run across?
You just gotta shake your guide sometimes...
If someone is going to base their ideal of what its like to elevate a child through adoption soley off a movie and then not do it because someone wrote a story that's not all touchy feely...or a moment ago plain fiction...then they should do the kids a favour and not adopt or foster. Reality check. :)
I think anyone that is turned bad to adoption by a hollywood horror movie is probably too immature to raise a child anyway
Pffffftttt. I imagine it's ridiculous that adoptive parents are the main force behind protesting the movie.
"It must be hard to love a child that isn't your own?" Really?? Ummm, check any adoption book written, and it will more than probable have that exact statement inside. Who says that? Duh...adoptees.
That is a statement/question "MOST" adoptees think going on for many times during their childhoods, especially if their ap's have bio kids. Is it painful? Yes. But it is truthful. Im sure at some point non-adopted children vote ask themselves if it could be hard for their parents love a sibling more than them.but for adoptees, it's almost a given that they have thought that or even asked that.
The statement doesn't mean it's true, but it is something to be precise thought about by most adoptees.
Of course, this is a horror flick. It will be over the top. All movies exaggerate to some degree. I think these ap's protesting the flick should :
a. Not run to the movie
b. Find out why this statement bothers them so much. Perhaps it may be hitting a little too close to home?? Source(s): coming soon to a theater near you.
I own only seen trailers for the movie - is it even out yet? I construe some IAP dislike it because too often people expect our children to have these sensitive of problems just because they were adopted from an orphanage or at an elder age.
Also, is the child suppose to be adopted from foster care? From what I saw in the trailer she be adopted from an orphanage. I believe the word orphanage is even used when they discuss the fact that the "orphanage has no diary of her ever being there". If she was in an orphanage the tinge would be that she was not in foster care. There are group homes still for some elder children and children with severe problems but it they are not referred to as orphanages.
Finally, there have be studies done (the most notable by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption) which have shown that a majority of American's feel that children contained by foster care are there because of something the child has done. American's within general have a very gloomy view of foster kids. Organizations and public service campaigns have be working hard to change this view so that more of these kids can switch on to find homes. I think the protests have less to do next to the fear that the movie will change the current positive view of elder kids in foster care; but instead the protests are related to the concern that the movie will reinforce the already extremely negative view that the general population holds of the elder children waiting in foster care.
APs are niave in what approach? That as a group we want to protect our children from ignorant statements like "It must be hard to love a child that isn't your own?" This statement be on the trailer which runs on national television when any age child might be watching it. Or niave in that those of us who feel strongly nearly children and their right to grow up in a family are dismayed to see a popular movie out there reinforcing the refusal views that are already keeping families from adopting from foster support or older children from orphanages for that matter. When I was preparing to adopt, I can't give an account you how many people warned me not to because those foster and/or orphanage kids hold major problems.
Personelly, I'm not taking the time to protest the movie. I don't plan to see it either. I think as you said the accepted wisdom are hardly novel and have already be overdone in the past.
They major took resentment at the tagline and Esther's line "It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own". I hold no problem with it, I've seen movies with far worse taglines.
BUT, the up to date tagline is "There's something wrong with Esther."
Wow. So a bunch of weak stomached individuals got sulky by the first tagline. And, one of the reasons floating around the web is that adoptive parents are just protecting their adopt child. Since when have adoptees been as so frail that we need to be protected from the big bleak evil movie industry. And, why dont the same adoptive parents and other individuals have problems with the current tagline.
So are adoptive parents and others suggesting that its wrong to sticky label adoptives parents as unloving. But its okay to promote and label adoptees as selfish, unloving, evil little so and so's.
I'd love to meet up near one of these protesters at a screening. I'd just laugh in their obverse and tell them the movie is based on my life.. next screem BOO. hahahahahahahha.
I'm certainly not protesting, and I'll probably jump see it, but the thing that troubles me somewhat is how more than once in the trailer alone it's mentioned outright that Esther is "older" and "mature"-- basically imply that older/foster children are damaged and bad, and a newborn would have be fine. It's not a dig at adoption as a whole, it's a dig against adopt a child from the demographic that actually really needs homes.
That said, it's just a movie, a summer popcorn movie no smaller amount, and I'm not deeply concerned. I hope no one takes it seriously, and if they do, they wouldn't be a suitable adoptive home for an older child anyway.
The studio has every constitutional right to make this movie. Protesters also hold every constitutional right to protest it. Everyone's free speech is protected under law, not just some people's. People enjoy a right to make art, and to criticize art too. (Also, 5th Amendment is self-incrimination. 1st includes free speech.)
Interestingly, the people protesting this movie are not all doing so because of adoption. Some are doing so because the movie is supposedly antisemitic-- gloom haired, Jewish-looking child named Esther is evil devil-spawn. Still just a movie. But it's not JUST adoptive parents or people who keeping about adoption who are fussing and protesting on this one, as your question seems to indicate. Adoptive parents may be the most vocal group in this case, but they don't enjoy the market cornered on movie protests by a longshot. Source(s): As most people with a level in any political science field, I've studied constitutional law
Just replace "The Orphan" with "Juno" and you hold your answer. Both are works of fiction with precious little value in veracity and yet each hit a nerve because they are personal. Each belittling an experience palpable to another entity. If I got angry at every adoption misconception spouted in popular culture I would have to throw out my TV and DVD player.
Ain't gonna start.
My back is more likely to go up and my mama carry claws come out when someone in my real life spouts BS. Then the ire is raise.
I think you denote 1st amendment. And no, APs are not infringing on the 1st amendment rights of Hollywood by protesting a movie or deciding not to spend their money to see it. APs (like everyone else) have the right to protest. After all, here were a lot of protest surrounding the movie Juno, too. And nobody was imply that people protesting Juno's portrayal of adoption was infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.
The only problem I have with the movie was the tag column about it being hard to love an adopt child as much as a biological child. APs. I get sick of that suggestion quite a bit. It doesn't bother me enough to protest it, but I doubt I'll spend my money to see it. I resembling scary movies quite a bit, but this doesn't look like a especially good one. As you said, it's been done before: The Bad Seed, The Omen.
ETA: So how masses people here who are pooh-poohing the adoptive parents for not wanting to see this movie, got bent out of shape over Juno's portrayal of adoption?
After adjectives, THAT was just a movie too, right?
Answers: To me it seem that the furor is indicative of how insecure the pro-adoption at any cost community really is. I think that their insecurity manifests in these foolish and over the top protests against a movie. Any time adoption is portrayed in any less than a glowing wishy-washy you see them coming out. They are here, they are on Cafe Mom, they are everywhere talking over the voices of the people who enjoy experienced the loss side, discounting and dismissing the sadness and pain.
If they were really support in their position or confident of their rightness, they wouldn't be so concerned about what people would muse about a silly thing like a movie.
What they are doing near their silly protests is call attention to the movie, since we know that "there is no such thing as unpromising publicity!" and to their own insecurities. It also makes people stop and think for a moment that perchance there IS something wrong. I don't believe for a moment that people are all that comfortable beside the idea of adoption, or that it sits well with family if they give it a moment's thought at all. When forced to think in the order of it because their attention is drawn to it, as these stupid protests are doing, they know that THEY wouldn't feel right about giving one of their children away, and they know, deep down inside, that in that is something not quite right about adoption as it is practiced in the US today.
In a process, I think that the pro-natural family people should be clapping their hand with glee and goading the furor on to its illogical and lunatic conclusion. But, it is unkind to use people's insecurities against them... but, oh, hang around...isn't that how THEY got the babies in the first place...hmmmmm.
i had never even heard of this b4 now, but that queue in the trailer is pretty offensive, imagine if some 7 year ripened adopted child heard that? the one thing that kept me sane during my childhood be imagining that my a parents DID love me as much as they would have if they had biological children. i havnt see the film, but i have heard genuine life stories of seriously troubled, not their own fault, foster kids who made foster or adopted parents lives extremly difficult, sternness etc, and maybe this film undermines the reason bhind a childs behaviour? we are a consequence of our environment as well as our genes.
Related Questions: