How badly are Christians portrayed in Hollywood?

Yes, I know that programs like Focus on the Family have beaten this to death, but it is still worth considering. Why does Hollywood believe it is okay to beat on Christians more than any other religious group? Is it that familiarity breeds contempt, or that the only overtly religious figures who catch the attention are stereotypes and hypocrites? Or is it simply lazy writing? (Warning, link has some non-family-friendly language.)

On the other hand, we’ve got Conservative Christians who are statistically far and away the most generous people on the planet (whether you’re judging by missionary work or basic tax returns) consistently being portrayed as hateful villains often using scripture to justify horrifying acts (see nearly every spiritual horror/psycho thriller movie made in the last three decades). Disregard the fact that people like my middle-class father annually give more to charity than President Obama and Joe Biden combined...

I am interested to know the opinions of Mod-bloggers on this. I think the comment about the charitable nature of Christians vs. the current president/vice-president is significant, too. Mostly because I know a few (non-rich) people who have confirmed the same thing about their own giving when compared to our leaders, including Hollywood's leaders.

Interesting look at a Post-9/11 Hollywood

The video makes an interesting point which I think really highlights the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Republicans are living in a world defined by 9/11. Democrats are living in a world defined by the Iraq War. This goes a long way toward explaining the differences in emphases and priorities in the parties and why they find it so hard to find a middle ground these days.

Gay films and the viewing public

It's hard to believe that just 2 years ago people were excited or angry about the success of Brokeback Mountain. I never saw the movie, though my wife tells me it was quite good. At the time, everyone was saying that the movie had broken all sorts of barriers and that a windfall of great gay movies and gay leading characters were coming as a result of the success of the movie. I guess all those predictions were wrong. This article examines why those predictions were wrong. The article is definitely slanted in the pro-gay direction, but is worth a read. The article gives a lot of good reasons, but I think that they miss the point of demographics. Most estimates put the total gay population of either the US or the world at about 10%. Obviously that means that 90% fall into the straight category. If only 10% of the population is gay, why then should (or would) more than 10% of lead characters be gay. I know that the gay population wants someone they can relate to, but for better or for worse they are the minority and thus are going to have a minority of lead characters. If you're going to make a movie that's going to relate to people then you need to aim at the greatest number of people to fit that category and when it comes to sexual orientation that's going to be straight folks. Personally, I don't have a problem with gay characters as long as they're written with balance and their sexual orientation isn't thrown in my face, but that goes for straight characters as well. So I guess what I'm looking for is good writing and that doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation.

The Pill for Pigeons

Apparently, Hollywood has a problem with pigeons. Well, to be more blunt, they have a problem with the messes that pigeons make. The solution? Birth control for the pigeons. You would think the animal rights activists would go crazy over this, but it was PETA's idea. In a few years, I wonder if we'll be hearing about the endangered pigeon population in Hollywood with calls to save the pigeons.