So it must be offensive to be artistic? Not gonna buy into that my friend. I always say that any message or story can be creatively portrayed in a manner that is suitable for children. If an artist has to use profanity, nudity, vulgarity, and gore to convey his point, then he is a poor artist indeed. And sadly, or society is rife with very poor artists. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for the garbage they produce.
I guess the Lives of the Saints is beneath your artistic level. (Or is it perhaps above it?)
I don't mean to pick on you, my friend, but I've always thought about this.
The Bible itself, as well as the history of the Church, has stories that I wouldn't consider "Child-friendly" at all.
Yes, companies do abridge the Bible and put it in terms that younger children can understand and appreciate, but I think is fine for them
But I've wondered whether we, as adults, should ourselves seek the "child-friendly" route. We can read the Bible. We read literature that isn't always "appropriate." Of course it isn't kosher to love vulgarity, but watching sugar-coated stories about real-life events that were much more raw, tragic, etc., comes off as so false. I'd rather not watch any movies than have to watch the stuff that is put out by today's evangelical Christian market (I don't know of the movie you're talking about, so I am not being specific here).
I used to be surrounded by adults who would ooh and ahh over movies like Fireproof and One Night With the King (awful, really). I really don't understand it myself. I think that we could use to inject some more reality in movies, not just what Focus on the Family happens to find appropriate at any given time.
But I also understand the critique that we shouldn't necessarily be wanting more sex, vulgar language, etc. in movies. I happen to stand on the other side of that, though.