Mopologetics and the Appeal of "wholesome extreme violence"
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2026 9:41 pm
An interesting post with a nearly accurate title ("An Action Movie and Some Vacuous Theology"; it should say, "An Action Movie and Some Vacuous Commentary"--a perfect description for virtually all of the content on "SeN," and the Interpreter Blog, for that matter) appeared recently at "SeN." In it, the Proprietor describes his experience watching the film Runner--an Angel Studios release. Angel Studios, of course, is the LDS distributor which describes itself as producing "uplifting shows for the whole family," including titles like, Unitards Jesus Revolution, and Charlie Kirk American Martyr [sic]. The Afore notes that he is, "very interested in what Angel Studios is up to" but acknowledges that, given the violent content of Runner, he "was curious about how Runner fits in with overall Angel Studios approach." Yes: that's a good question. How is it that a violent action film, released by a distributor that is helmed by loyal Latter-day Saints, can be described as "uplifting...for the whole family"? Indeed, the Proprietor winds up having quite a positive experience:
Luckily, the invaluable poster "Chet" immediately notices that something is amiss:
Yes: it's no doubt true that "in any given year, more people engage in sex (and more frequently) than in car chases, extreme violence, disemboweling, and murder. I suspect, too, that the desire for the former exceeds the desire for the latter in normal people." But that is not really the issue here. Instead, the question is: Which do certain people--esp. Mopologists--consistently pick when it comes time for entertainment? The implication, of course, is a prudish one: a naked breast or the utterance of the "F" word is repellent; but seeing people get beat to a pulp or having their heads blown off with a rocket-propelled grenade is not only acceptable but "good, wholesome" fun. There is, in other words, something to be said here about the fundamental values of the Mopologists, and the values that are inculcated in them by the dictates of the Brethren. Beheadings and dismemberment, so long as there is no cussing? Totally okay! Watching Sirens and thinking about it afterwards, even if you don't act on it? You better make an appointment to see your bishop.
Meanwhile, it is perhaps worth thinking about the reasons why the Afore seems to interested in Angel Studios. According to a Rolling Stone article from a couple of years ago, the company was valued at $1.6 billion when it went public in 2024. But as you can also see, the company was sued do to breach of contract and has faced accusations that it "screws" over the smaller filmmakers whose work it distributes. (If you want to see the whole article, you can check it out on this Reddit thread.) So, a billion-dollar film distribution company, run by Mormons that (allegedly) routinely shafts the "little guy"? Yes: no wonder the Proprietor is "very interested in what Angel Studios is up to."
And remember: watching a video of "J.Lo Hot Booty Shaking" elicits a public apology. Watching gratuitous, graphic violence, though, gets an affirmative review and a recommendation
Eh, I don't know. I think about some of the classics of action filmmaking: The Road Warrior, for example, or perhaps The French Connection or Die Hard. But of course, those are not "Brethren-approved" since they're rated "R" and have "harsh language." But it makes perfect sense that Mopologists would be drawn to a watered-down version of an action film which still includes all the gratuitous violence but deletes all the cuss words. Indeed, frequent "SeN" commentator Larry Arnett notes:That said, I really rather liked Runner. More than I had expected to do. It’s an exciting movie and, I thought, a quite entertaining way to spend an hour and thirty-eight minutes. If you enjoy action films, you’ll very probably like Runner.
Lol. Worth noting is the seeming oxymoron "wholesome extremes violence" ("wholesome"???) and also that the movie "exceeded our expectations." The assumption being, I guess, that an "uplifting" film from Angel Studios would limit the amount of gore and violence on screen, too?We also saw the movie “Runner”. I would describe it as wholesome extreme violence since the language used by all the characters would be rated “G”. We also enjoyed it and we were surprised that it exceeded our expectations.
Luckily, the invaluable poster "Chet" immediately notices that something is amiss:
And the Afore immediately reacts:LA: "We also saw the movie “Runner”. I would describe it as wholesome extreme violence since the language used by all the characters would be rated “G”. We also enjoyed it and we were surprised that it exceeded our expectations."
That sounds like a Tarantino movie directed by Mister Rogers where everyone politely says "golly" right before blowing each other to smithereens. What exactly is "wholesome extreme violence"? Also, speaking of cinematic double standards, do you think screen violence is genuinely more harmful than nudity, or are Americans just weirdly squeamish about the wrong things?
I think it safe to say that, for normal people, onscreen violence isn't alluring, seductive, stimulating, and enticing in the same way, and to the same degree, that onscreen sex and nudity are enticing, stimulating, seductive, and alluring to normal people. Your mileage may vary.
Chet wrote:Claiming onscreen violence isn't enticing, seductive or alluring to "normal people" is quite the leap, considering Hollywood has spent decades turning extreme violence, explosions, car chases, and violent smackdowns into billion dollar box office hits for those very same "normal people." It seems that most "normal people," when faced with a movie that contains extreme violence or sexual content, consistently choose to spend their money on extreme violence. It says a lot about our culture that we treat disembowelment, killings as harmless wholesome entertainment and intimacy/nudity as a moral crisis.
While I think that Chet is making some valuable points here, I think his aim is a bit too wide. He writes, "It seems that most "normal people," when faced with a movie that contains extreme violence or sexual content, consistently choose to spend their money on extreme violence." He should have written, "It seems that most Mopologists, when faced with a movie that contains extreme violence or sexual content, consistently choose to spend their money on extreme violence." Phrased that way, it is absolutely, 100% correct, and I doubt even the Afore would argue. The Afore might not "endorse...the brutalization of human beings," but he's happy to fork over his money in order to enjoy it as entertainment.The Afore wrote:"Chet:" "Claiming onscreen violence isn't enticing, seductive or alluring to "normal people" is quite the leap"
And I'm quite confident in making it.
In any given year, more people engage in sex (and more frequently) than in car chases, extreme violence, disemboweling, and murder. I suspect, too, that the desire for the former exceeds the desire for the latter in normal people. Again, your mileage may vary.
While, given its moral teachings, the Church feels a need to encourage its membership to live chaste and sexually restrained lives, I don't think that the Church feels a similarly urgent need to discourage disemboweling, extreme violence, and homicide among its members -- and I think that completely understandable and realistic.
If you're trying to portray me as endorsing the brutalization of human beings, by the way, you should probably not spend too much time or effort on that quixotic undertaking.
Yes: it's no doubt true that "in any given year, more people engage in sex (and more frequently) than in car chases, extreme violence, disemboweling, and murder. I suspect, too, that the desire for the former exceeds the desire for the latter in normal people." But that is not really the issue here. Instead, the question is: Which do certain people--esp. Mopologists--consistently pick when it comes time for entertainment? The implication, of course, is a prudish one: a naked breast or the utterance of the "F" word is repellent; but seeing people get beat to a pulp or having their heads blown off with a rocket-propelled grenade is not only acceptable but "good, wholesome" fun. There is, in other words, something to be said here about the fundamental values of the Mopologists, and the values that are inculcated in them by the dictates of the Brethren. Beheadings and dismemberment, so long as there is no cussing? Totally okay! Watching Sirens and thinking about it afterwards, even if you don't act on it? You better make an appointment to see your bishop.
Meanwhile, it is perhaps worth thinking about the reasons why the Afore seems to interested in Angel Studios. According to a Rolling Stone article from a couple of years ago, the company was valued at $1.6 billion when it went public in 2024. But as you can also see, the company was sued do to breach of contract and has faced accusations that it "screws" over the smaller filmmakers whose work it distributes. (If you want to see the whole article, you can check it out on this Reddit thread.) So, a billion-dollar film distribution company, run by Mormons that (allegedly) routinely shafts the "little guy"? Yes: no wonder the Proprietor is "very interested in what Angel Studios is up to."
And remember: watching a video of "J.Lo Hot Booty Shaking" elicits a public apology. Watching gratuitous, graphic violence, though, gets an affirmative review and a recommendation