Talk:End of the Spear

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ecuador Low‑importance Film: Christian / American This article is supported by the Christian films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The line reads the perspective of Mincayani one of the tribesmen who killed the missionaries and Steve Saint, the son of one of the murdered missionaries. It implies that the son was killed too but goes on to state The two eventually form a bond that continues to this day. speaking of the son and Mincayani. I saw the film, the son is still alive. The previous sentence should be reworded. Metamorphousthe 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the blog website of longtime Christian singer Steve Camp a link where the movie was referred to as "End of the Spin", criticizing an unclear Gospel message and Chad Allen controversies.

How does this movie have an unclear message? The message of salvation, forgiveness. They are not savages, but people who are lost and confused, like the entire world, including us. --66.218.17.240

The real life event preaches the message of salvation. This movie mealy points to forgiveness. While part of Christianity, it is not the main thing which is stands for, that of repentance of a sinful nature and turn towards god, for the forgiveness of sins, and the the new creation ideal.

I think the controversy stems from this fact. 5 men gave up their lives to share this with these people.

Is it not a disservice to their sacrifice to present a watered down movie about them with out a clear presentation of the need for salvation, and the means of it.

Anyone can forgive, but these men and wives of them had more reason for forgiving then for the sake of forgiving. While many Christians see this in the movie because they know about it, an uneducated population should be educated as to the true motives --phalcon 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Moral" section of was cited some time back for lacking a reference; the reference then added was a movie review--not acceptable to substantiate claims like "the moral of the story was..." If someone can cite one of the filmmakers stating in an interview that the movie was all about "forgiveness" that would be different; citing a film critic doesn't cut it. "Epic" is a literary form; "true life epic" is a solecism. The "special bond" between Steve Saint and Mincayani is not substantiated; "special" is too objective and too vague. "Less than satisfactory" must refer to the first doc's box office performance, not the movie itself.

"Prejudice" is perhaps an accurate term in a strictly grammatical sense (judging a person before knowing them), but I'm sure many Christians would argue that their faith-based objections to using an openly homosexual actor do not constitute "prejudice" (and I say this as a homosexual AND a non-Christian). It's just not a neutral word.

Updated Rotten Tomato Meter, imdb, and boxofficemojo cites, and added URL refs.

Imdb number should be 7.9 mean. The value on the front page is "weighted" where some votes count more than others. When each person counts the same, it's 7.9 66.75.8.138 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films distributor(s) unclear. The heading info says Jungle Films LLC, while the article says Every Tribe Entertainment; also boxofficemojo says Rocky Mountain Pictures. Not sure what this means. smegma23 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links is no longer valid, "Gay actor's roles in movie stir controversy, The News-Sentinel, February 1, 2006" You come to a blank page.