Wow

[skull_bearer]

I saw this article in the Metro today, and my jaw just dropped.
Now, you all know I'm not a massive fan of religion. In fact, I'm not a fan at all, but this goes beyond even what I find acceptable and goes straight into 'oh wait, hang on now'.
It might be because I've got some pagan friends, and can imagine what their reactions would be at having their religion described as that practised in The Wicker Man. I mean, I love that film, but saying that it's an accurate description of modern pagans is like saying Jude Suss is an accurate portrayl of Jews.

Seriously Metro, wtf? It was on the front page too, I'm looking forward to seeing tomorrow's opinion's page.

Comments

[kathie-d.livejournal.com]

I think it's even worse, tbh. I was brought up in a Church that was fairly Chick tract-y, but I never heard of anything as insane as the Wicker Man in Paganism... but hey, perhaps I just never went to the right parties. ;-)

Didn't Christopher Lee actually do a lot of work to ensure that film was actually made? I guess he knew the world needed to see him dancing around in a dress setting fire to people.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

Yeah I guess, that's why I said 'mainstream'.
Wicker Man is one of those films that should plain just NOT WORK. It has Christopher Lee in a dress! And really weird music! And a main character you want to strangle! And people being naked in Scotland in November!
AND IT WAS AWESOME.

Which is why I don't understand why people keep making sequels and remakes of it, the original was like finding a crisp in the shape of Elvis Presley, you're not going to have any luck looking through packs of crisps for another one.