Facebook page: Boycott "I'm not Ashamed" Movie

Apparently it's run by a survivor/alumni/friend of Rachel's named Sarah. In summary from what I've read on the page, she thinks it's insensitive and exploitative and doesn't honor the true Rachel. People I've seen supporting the page/its message include Devon Adams, Richard Castaldo, Anne Marie Hochhalter, and Randy Brown.

I won't pay any money to watch it, that's for sure. Here's the link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting that Christine Mauser, Devon Adams, Richard Castaldo, Anne Marie Hochhalter, and Randy Brown support it.

Daniel Mauser's sister too

Ahh I knew there was another one! And yes, I think that speaks volumes. Not to undermine the parent/child relationship but teens often show their true selves more to their peers/friends. Not to mention the movie isn't just about her, it's about the massacre, which is an experience that belongs to so many others. The whole thing just reeks of a parent desperate to preserve an idealistic view of her late daughter. Even when I first heard it'd be released I thought it seemed like it was in bad taste.

Also, I would absolutely not want my journals published if I died. It's obvious they were a very private outlet for her. Anne Frank is one thing--that's her documenting what it was like to live in an extraordinary situation and is immensely valuable as a historical piece. A teenage girl's writings (often to God) about her innermost thoughts and struggles? We don't really need to understand Rachel for any productive reason (unlike E/D--it'd be beneficial to get inside their heads) so it's really just frivolous and fame-seeking.

fatlittleparasite wrote:

Also, I would absolutely not want my journals published if I died. It's obvious they were a very private outlet for her. Anne Frank is one thing--that's her documenting what it was like to live in an extraordinary situation and is immensely valuable as a historical piece. A teenage girl's writings (often to God) about her innermost thoughts and struggles? We don't really need to understand Rachel for any productive reason (unlike E/D--it'd be beneficial to get inside their heads) so it's really just frivolous and fame-seeking.

The Scott's have definitely held back a bit releasing her journals. Nothing released is that personal so far, I remember Mark Bodiford (one of Rachel's best friends who would often share her diaries with him) claiming that the Scott's have only released 1% of stuff that she wrote.

I think the April 20 release date is a bit strange and a bit insensitive, I agree... other than that, I thought the US was 'the land of the free'. They can release a movie about a purple monkey dishwasher if they want, it's their right to do so. No one is forcing them to watch it if they don't want to.

I've had a problem with this movie since it was announced. I'm not fully against a Columbine movie as long as it isn't exploitative like this one. Not only is it about a single victim, but it perpetuates a lie that panders to the religious. Some say the Scotts are still in denial but I think that's bullshit. They obviously have reached the point of putting their faith over their daughters true memory and I find it disgusting.

What bothers me the most is the inaccuracy. From what I understand, neither Rachel Scott nor Cassie Bernall were asked if they believed in God before they were killed. Valeen Schnurr was asked that and she survived. This is all just comes off as Christian propaganda to me, portraying the victims as martyrs who died for their faith when their deaths were really just random.

"A major Hollywood studio offered to buy the rights to the film for $26 million. However, the offer was declined. “I’m not Ashamed” was funded through private donors."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Did they say no the money because they don't want money or did they say now because they think it will make even more than what the studio offered?

I would like to know where the money is going.

Well I say good for them! Just because Rachel's fam is involved doesn't mean we should all just look past and accept their bullshit.

I'm not convinced this movie will even release. Last I heard they were having trouble finding distributers to pick up the film. And the FB page hasn't updated since September last year. I think the boycott is working.

sororityalpha wrote:

Interesting that Christine Mauser, Devon Adams, Richard Castaldo, Anne Marie Hochhalter, and Randy Brown support it.

This is interesting, it seems like Coni Sanders supports it too.

I also didn't realise (or maybe forgot) that there was a supposed release sate for April 20th.

I can see this releasing on Amazon for $1.99. It's a shame too because the production values and some of the casting look great - "Dylan" looks like a mixture between Michael Cera and the real thing!

WendlaBergman wrote:

I can see this releasing on Amazon for $1.99. It's a shame too because the production values and some of the casting look great - "Dylan" looks like a mixture between Michael Cera and the real thing!

It’s not a shame, Wendla. If they would have produced a movie that actually was accurate and wasn’t about making Rachel a martyr, not to mention all the Christian propaganda, which had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. The Scotts are using the tragedy (which is their tragedy too) with lies to make it into something that it wasn’t. To make money.

Why else would friends of Rachel and other people involved in the Columbine tragedy protest against it?

I meant that it's a shame such a poor premise with lies woven through it has such decent production values and casting in some cases.

WendlaBergman wrote:

I meant that it's a shame such a poor premise with lies woven through it has such decent production values and casting in some cases.

Okay

Ahh, I remember reading about this movie. Here's a post I made several months ago on this forum about  "I'm not Ashamed"

"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/korie-and-sadie-robertson-duck-dynasty-join-cast-f/?page=all

"The director of the movie was quoted as saying “All of the ‘Duck Dynasty’ people, they’re really incredible."

"Sadie Robertson, 17, was offered the lead role of Rachel Scott, but according to Mr. Howard, she didn’t feel up to the challenge. She instead accepted the smaller role of Rachel Scott’s cousin."

"Sadie is also acting in “God’s Not Dead 2: He’s Surely Alive."

“Rachel gave her life for her faith. But, oh man, it’s something that’s tough to talk about. However, it’s something that all teens need to realize and recognize because they need to know if they’re going to go all in or not.”



Oh great, more christian propaganda. They will stop at no costs to further their "war on Christianity" agenda. There is no evidence to support that Eric and Dylan really asked Rachel if she believed in god. They need to stop spreading this. This is like what happened with Cassie Bernall. Although in Rachel's case, it is even more clear that Eric And Dylan didn't say anything.

If they just wanted to make an honest documentary about Rachel, I would gladly support it. I have been hoping for a new one to be made. But the fact that they are trying to spread lies about how she died to make it seem like Christians are under attack makes me hope this movie never gets funded. It is so disrespectful to her"

It's just a movie. Whether or not the movie is fabricated, who cares. It's kind of difficult today to NOT fabricate or leave something out today. Truth is only people who know what was said if something was even said is Eric and Rachel and they're both gone. Possibly Richard Castaldo but he had his own problems at the time (like surviving gunshot wounds from the unsuspected attack as well).

The release date has been pushed back until August.

Juicy Jazzy wrote:

The release date has been pushed back until August.

To mark her thirty-fifth birthday? It's coming up on Friday, August 5.

LPorter101 wrote:

To mark her thirty-fifth birthday? It's coming up on Friday, August 5.

Good thinking, that would make the most sense.

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I'm super confused by this movie. Don't judge me (lol) but I was stalking Craig Scott's Facebook page and he didn't even know the film was being made until pre-production had started... And his mum is involved in it! Why would she not tell her own son about a movie about his sister? He said he's had no part in it whatsoever.

on the thread on his Facebook page there were quite a few friends of Rachel's complaining about the movie and how they have been 'shut out' of the movie.

I just find the whole thing a little weird.

That page has been taken off of facebook apparently

1891 wrote:

"A major Hollywood studio offered to buy the rights to the film for $26 million. However, the offer was declined. “I’m not Ashamed” was funded through private donors."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Did they say no the money because they don't want money or did they say now because they think it will make even more than what the studio offered?

I would like to know where the money is going.

$26m? No fucking way.

The movie shows fake versions of everyone.

While "I'm Not Ashamed" is not a great movie, it frankly could have been a lot worse. It's the only Christian-studio film I've ever watched and I was expecting it to be completely awful. I'd give it 2 stars out of 5 instead of 1.

It is *not* about the massacre. Only E&D killing Rachel and shooting a guy whose name has been changed from "Richard Castaldo" to something else, is actually shown. Then we are shown the aftermath, including the inevitable appearance of E&D walking around on the cafeteria security cam.

The actress who plays Rachel does not look like her (real Rachel looked about 14 when she was 17, this girl looks about 19, and has long hair), but does pretty well as just an actress anyway. She's the brightest spot in the movie. The thing of it is, the movie is more fair minded than one would expect about her religious struggles--I'm not sure how ACCURATE all of it is, but she is NOT portrayed as a total saint. This does not stop the "OMG my friends want me to smoke and have sex with that smart theater boy!" scenes from being pretty laughable, mind you.

The movie seems to have included several moments to thumb its nose at "Columbiners." We see Eric spinning something around on a desk like in that video they made, and a truly hilarious bit at the prom shows Dylan slow dancing with a sullen blonde who is staring off into the distance. Nick Baumgart as Rachel's prom date has been replaced by a nerdy spazzy Asian dude. One character who oh-so-90s wears his shirt tied around his waist and gets into a debate about Buddhism with Rachel is probably supposed to be Brooks Brown (who spoke quite admiringly of Rachel in his book.) Before she's shot, Rachel says to not-Richard-Castaldo, "there's no easy answers" which is some kind of weird shoutout to Brooks' book title? There's a hilariously bad recreation of "Hitmen For Hire." Really, everything they do with E&D in this movie could have been based on things they learned or saw second hand. I have no idea who Rachel's slutty friends are based on, and the subplot about her trying to convert a homeless guy to Christianity gets very funny when he gets physically violent with Rachel's smarmy, Adam Scott-like theater boyfriend.

Of course, the moment where she is asked if she believes in God before E&D shoot her is totally embarrassing. No real excusing her family for that one.

Every movie based on a real event lies about something or other. It just always happens. Two of my favorite movies are "Amadeus" and "The Aviator" and god knows how inaccurate those are.